Order: 1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties taken up for final hearing forthwith and heard. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked against the order dated 23/07/2012 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai by which order the learned Judge has held that the City Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in the present form. 3. Since both the above Civil Revision Applications challenge the said order dated 23/7/2012, they are taken up for hearing together. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, few facts can be stated thus:- The Applicant in Civil Revision Application No.960 of 2012 is the society of the slum dwellers on a plot of land in which slum the suit premises in question are situated. The Applicant No.1 in Civil Revision Application No.678 of 2012 is presently in occupation of the suit premises being the daughter of the original owner/occupant one Yeshwant Dhumale. The Applicant No.1 is the original Defendant No.1. The Respondent No.1 herein is the original Plaintiff in the suit in question being S.C. Suit No.1250 of 2012. The bone of contention in the suit is the inheritance of the said suit premises being Room No.14, admeasuring about 10.78 sq.mtrs. in the Applicant-society being Sagar Darshan Co-operative Housing Society, Janta Colony, Worli village, Adarsh Nagar, Mumbai. The reliefs sought in the suit in question are to the effect that the Court may issue a declaration that the Defendant No.1 is a rank trespasser in respect of the suit premises and she is bound and liable to remove herself and other family members from the suit premises. The second relief sought is that the Plaintiff be declared to be entitled to the permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of the suit premises in the event of the said property being redeveloped under SRA Scheme; the third relief sought is to injunct the Defendant No.1 from creating third party interests in respect of the suit premises. 5. The Plaintiff who is the nephew of the said Yeshwant Dhumale lays a claim to the suit property on the basis of last Will and Testament of the said Dhumale dated 18/6/2008 which is a registered document by which he claims that the suit premises have been bequeathed to him. 5. The Plaintiff who is the nephew of the said Yeshwant Dhumale lays a claim to the suit property on the basis of last Will and Testament of the said Dhumale dated 18/6/2008 which is a registered document by which he claims that the suit premises have been bequeathed to him. It is further his case that in the said Will the testator has stated that he has given enough to both his daughters and they are well to do and considering the present position where the testator was looked after by the Plaintiff that the said Will came to be executed in his favour and the property is bequeathed to him. The said Will it appears was registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance at Rajapur Dist. Sindhudurg. 6. In the said suit as indicated above, the Defendant No.5 and the Defendant No.1 filed an application raising a preliminary issue invoking Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure . In so far as the Defendant No.5 i.e. the Applicant in Civil Revision Application No.960 of 2012 is concerned, the maintainability of the suit was questioned on the touchstone of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short referred to as “the Slum Act). In so far as the Defendant No.1 is concerned, the maintainability of the suit is questioned on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as it is founded on the Will and unless a probate is obtained, the Plaintiff cannot seek any relief based on the said Will, by filing a suit. 7. Pursuant to the objection raised in the Written Statements filed by the Defendant No.5 and Defendant No.1, a preliminary issue to the following effect came to be framed:- Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit? The said issue as indicated above was answered in the affirmative by the City Civil Court, Mumbai and, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai ruled that the said Court would have jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The impugned order discloses that though maintainability of the suit was challenged on two fold grounds, the learned Judge, it seems has dealt with only one ground i.e. the maintainability of the suit in the absence of probate. The impugned order discloses that though maintainability of the suit was challenged on two fold grounds, the learned Judge, it seems has dealt with only one ground i.e. the maintainability of the suit in the absence of probate. The Learned Judge whilst holding that he had jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit has observed to the following effect:- “According to me, so far as the genuineness as to the Will in question is concerned, the City Civil Court according to me is the only proper forum which can decide legal sanctity and genuineness of Will and grant declaration in that regard” After so observing the learned Judge has gone on to observe that the whole claim is founded on the basis of the Will of the testator, thus even though the suit premises come within the ambit of Slum Act, then so far as reliefs sought under the plaint are concerned, the provisions of that Act will not come in the way of the Court to try and entertain the suit. The learned Judge therefore did not adjudicate upon the issue of maintainability of the suit on the touchstone of Section 42 of the Slum Act. As indicated above it is the said order dated 23/7/2012 which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Applications. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in each of the above Civil Revision Applications i.e. Shri Kanade in Civil Revision Application No.960/2012 and Shri Jamdar in Civil Revision Application No.678/2012 would contend that the foundation of the suit and the relief claimed being the Will of the said Dhumale, the suit in question is not maintainable unless a probate is obtained. The learned counsel would draw my attention to the definition of “District Judge” in Section 2(bb), Sections 57, 264, and 300 of the Indian Succession Act, and the definition of “District” in subsection (4) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Provisions of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 and especially Section 3(a) thereof. It is the submission of the learned counsel that a conjoint reading of the said provisions would unmistakably lead to a conclusion that it is only this Court i.e. the High Court which has jurisdiction in the matter of grant of a probate. It is the submission of the learned counsel that a conjoint reading of the said provisions would unmistakably lead to a conclusion that it is only this Court i.e. the High Court which has jurisdiction in the matter of grant of a probate. The learned counsel would contend that though two issues were sought to be raised, the Trial Court has considered the maintainability of the suit only on the basis of the objection raised as regards the maintainability of the suit on the ground of probate not being obtained, and the second issue has not been touched by the Trial Court. 9. Per contra, Shri Sawant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 i.e. the original Plaintiff would fairly concede that in view of the provisions of law as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Applicants, it is this Court i.e. the High Court of Bombay which has the exclusive jurisdiction in so far as grant of a probate of a Will of a person who expired in Mumbai and the Will is executed in Mumbai and also in case of a Will which is executed out side Mumbai, but the property covered by the Will is situated in Mumbai. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 Shri Sawant would contend that the matter may be relegated back to the Trial Court for consideration of the second objection raised on the touchstone of Section 42 of the Slum Act. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In so far as the present Civil Revision Applications are concerned, the suit and the reliefs claimed therein are founded on the Will executed by the said Dhumale in favour of the Plaintiff. The property in question i.e. the suit premises are also situated in Mumbai. Therefore, in so far as the statutory provisions, which have been adverted to herein above, are concerned, they immediately come into play in view of the aforesaid fact situation. The provisions of Sections 57, 264, 300 and the definition of “District Judge” in Section 2(bb) of The Indian Succession Act 1925, the definition of “District” in Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 3(a) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 are reproduced herein under:- 57. The provisions of Sections 57, 264, 300 and the definition of “District Judge” in Section 2(bb) of The Indian Succession Act 1925, the definition of “District” in Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 3(a) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 are reproduced herein under:- 57. Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills made by Hindus, etc.- The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply – (a) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immovable property situate within those territories or limits; and (c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b): Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such will or codicil. 264. Jurisdiction of District Judge in granting and revoking probates, etc. – (1) The District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district. (2) Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no Court in any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, shall, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the State Government has, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do. 300. Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court. – (1) The High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred upon the District Judge. 300. Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court. – (1) The High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred upon the District Judge. (2) Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no High Court, in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction hereby conferred over any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay shall, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the State Government has, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do.” 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - (bb) "District Judge" means the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction; “The Definition of District in Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - (4) "district" means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "District Court "), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court:” “Section 3(a) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948: 3. The [State] Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish for the Greater Bombay a court, to be called the Bombay City Civil Court. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such court shall have jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature' [not exceeding rupees one crore in value,] arising within the Greater Bombay, except suits or proceedings which are cognizable (a) by the High Court as a Court of Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty as a Colonial Court of Admiralty, or as a Court having testamentary, intestate or matrimonial Jurisdiction, or” A conjoint reading of the said provisions therefore unmistakably and irresistibly lead to a conclusion that in so far as the city of Mumbai is concerned, it is this Court which is a Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction in so far as the grant of probate is concerned and therefore in terms of Section 264 read with Section 57 it would have jurisdiction to entertain an application for probate. Section 300 further makes it clear that except in cases to which Section 57 applies an High Court in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction conferred over any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay shall not receive applications or letters of administration, until the State Government has by a notification in the Official Gazette authorised it so to do. The instant case is a case which is covered by Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act and therefore this court is even vested with a concurrent jurisdiction. The said aspect can be looked at from another angle inasmuch as by virtue of Section 3(a) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act 1948 the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is ousted in so far as the testamentary matters are concerned, since the jurisdiction is of this Court. 11. As indicated herein above, a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would lead to a conclusion that it is this Court which has jurisdiction to entertain an application for probate in view of the fact that it is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The Trial Court as can be seen has proceeded on the basis that it is the proper forum which can decide the legal sanctity and genuineness of the Will, and grant a declaration in that regard. The said finding of the learned Judge of the Trial Court militates against the mandate of the aforesaid statutory provisions. In view thereof, the impugned order in so far as it holds that the City Civil Court has jurisdiction is unsustainable and is required to be quashed and set aside, and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Since the Plaintiff has founded his claim on the basis of the said Will, he would be entitled to file the proceedings laying a claim to the property in question after he obtains the probate in respect of the said Will. In view thereof, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for the consideration of the second objection. Assuming that the Trial Court on remand holds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding the bar of Section 42 of the Slum Act, the same would not serve any purpose as ultimately the Plaintiff's entitlement to the relief would hinge upon him obtaining the probate in respect of the Will. Assuming that the Trial Court on remand holds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding the bar of Section 42 of the Slum Act, the same would not serve any purpose as ultimately the Plaintiff's entitlement to the relief would hinge upon him obtaining the probate in respect of the Will. 12. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23/7/2012 is quashed and set aside and the suit would stand dismissed as not maintainable at this stage. However, it would be open for the Plaintiff to file a fresh suit after obtaining probate of the Will in question. If the said suit is filed, the issue of maintainability of the suit on the touchstone of Section 42 of the Slum Act is kept open for being raised and agitated before the concerned Court, at the said time, If such an issue is raised, the concerned court would try the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is also clarified that the matter on the other points has not been considered by this Court and it would be open for the parties to agitate the said points in the fresh suit that would be filed. The above Civil Revision Applications are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with parties to bear their respective costs.