JUDGMENT : Arindam Mukherjee, J. 1. Amal Kumar Mitra a hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of hindu law during his life time died on 21st March, 2006 at Suraksha Hospital, Salt Lake, Kolkata leaving behind his window, two sons and one married daughter as his legal heirs and heiresses. Amal Kumar Mitra is said to have left behind a Will dated 9th February, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Will) as his last Will and testament. Under the Will he has appointed his younger son Santanu Kumar Mitra as the sole executor. 2. The sole executor has filed an application for grant of probate of the said Will being PLA No.249 of 2011. The said application for grant has been contested by Anuradha, the married daughter of the testator. The application for grant having been set down as contentious cause by an order dated 27th January, 2015 is numbered as testamentary suit No.7 of 2015 being the instant suit. The executor Santanu Mitra is the plaintiff while Anuradha Das, the caveatrix is the defendant in the instant suit. The suit has reached the stage of trial. 3. The instant application is by the defendant for “rejection of the admission of the plaint” on the ground that this Court lacks the jurisdiction in receiving, entertaining, trying and adjudicating the suit in as much as the testator had all his immovable and movable assets outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, had his permanent abode at AE 296, Sector-I Bidhannagar (Salt Lake City) Kolkata-700064 also outside the jurisdiction and died also outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The prayer made by the applicant/defendant, however, appears to be not in proper form. The applicant/defendant as appears from the application and the submissions made at the hearing of the application is seeking return of the plaint on the ground of lack of competence of this Court. It cannot be said at this stage that the executor does not have the right to file an application for grant of probate unless it is held at the trial that the executor is not entitled to a grant. It cannot be said at this stage that the executor does not have the right to file an application for grant of probate unless it is held at the trial that the executor is not entitled to a grant. There is no question of admission of the plaint on the application for grant having been set down as contentions cause and numbered as a testamentary suit, particularly when the applicant has contested the grant by filing a caveat and an affidavit in support thereof. The prayer of the applicant is, therefore, for return of the plaint and not for “rejection of the admission of the plaint”. Considering the prayer to be for the return of the plaint, I now proceed to deal with the instant application. 5. The authority of this Court being a Chartered High Court constituted under the Royal Charter is derived from Clause 34 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and section 300(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 1925 Act). Clause 34 confers original jurisdiction while section 300(1) of the 1925 Act gives concurrent jurisdiction to this Court along with the District Judge. 6. In the instant case the deceased had his permanent abode at Bidhannagar (Salt Lake City). He died at a Hospital also in Salt Lake. The place of abode, the place of death, the immovable property and one bank account are at Bidhannagar within the territorial jurisdiction of North 24 Parganas. The bank account at Kakurgachhi is within the territorial jurisdiction of South 24 Parganas. 7. Going by the place of abode, place of death, location of the immovable property and one bank account, the application for grant of probate could have been filed in the Court of the District Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat under the provision of section 264 of the 1925 Act. Similarly, under the same provision, in view of the fact that one bank account is at Kakurgachhi, the probate application could have also been filed at the Court of District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas. On the other hand in view of the provisions of section 300(1) of 1925 Act, the application for grant can be filed in this Court and is maintainable when there is no issue as to the City Civil Court at Calcutta having jurisdiction in the matter. On the other hand in view of the provisions of section 300(1) of 1925 Act, the application for grant can be filed in this Court and is maintainable when there is no issue as to the City Civil Court at Calcutta having jurisdiction in the matter. This view is supported by the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2006 (2) CLJ 460 (Prabir Kumar Das vs. Jayanti Das). 8. In the circumstances, as aforesaid I hold that this Court possesses the jurisdiction to receive, entertain and try the testamentary suit being T.S 7 of 2015. 9. The applicant has also taken a point that assuming without admitting that this Court has the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the instant matte, the plaintiff himself having not referred to any notification under Section 300(2) of the 1925 Act in its pleading and having failed to produce any such notification it has to be construed that there is no such notification. As a consequence thereof this Court should hold that it has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suit. 10. This argument of the applicant has fallen for consideration of this Court on two occasions and has been answered in two different manners. In the judgment reported in AIR 1950 Cal 377 (Manicklal Shah vs. Hiralal Shaw) a Single Bench of this Court has held that the 1925 Act is a consolidation of several acts including the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 1881 Act). Section 300(2) of the 1925 Act is verbatim reproduction of Section 2 of the said 1881 Act. The Court noticed that the notification required under Section 2 of the said 1881 Act was duly published on 20th April, 1881 in Page 445, Part I of the Calcutta Gazette. The Court thereafter held that provisions of Section 2 of the 1881 Act having been reenacted as Section 300(2) of the 1925 Act, the said notification dated 20th April, 1881 is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 300(2) of the 1925 Act. 11. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the report (Manicklal Shaw (supra)) was doubted by another Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in AIR 1970 Cal 85 (Bratindra Nath Dey vs. Sukumar Ch. Dey). 11. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the report (Manicklal Shaw (supra)) was doubted by another Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in AIR 1970 Cal 85 (Bratindra Nath Dey vs. Sukumar Ch. Dey). The learned Single Judge in Bratindra (supra) held that in cases of Wills which do not come within the ambit of Section 57 of the 1925 Act the notification is needed when the High Court exercises its concurrent jurisdiction. However, in cases where Wills are covered by Section 57 of the 1925 Act, no notification is required for the High Court to exercise concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300(2). 12. This brings me to answer another question in view of the 1980 amendment to the City Civil Court Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as City Court Act) that is whether the High Court or the City Civil Court has to be approached in the instant case. Section 5 (3), 22 and the Second Schedule of the City Court Act so far as it relates to proceedings under the 1925 Act relevant for the purpose are set out hereunder :- “5(3) The City Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try and proceeding under – (i) the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, (iii) the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, (iv) the Indian Succession Act, 1925.” “22. Amendments to certain enactments. – The enactments specified in the Second Schedule are hereby amended in their application to West Bengal to the extent and in the manner mentioned in the fourth column of such Schedule.” THE SECOND SCHEDULE Year Number Short Title Amendments 1 2 3 4 1925 39 Indian Succession Act, 1925 (1) To  clause  (bb)  of  section  2,  the  following proviso shall be added:- “Provided  that  as  respect  the  area  comprised within the local limits for the  time being of the ordinary original civil  jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta  references to a District Judge in this Act  shall be construed  as  references to the  City Civil Court established under the  City Civil Court Act, 1953.”. (2) In section 273, clause (a) of the proviso  shall be omitted. (2) In section 273, clause (a) of the proviso  shall be omitted. (3) In section 274, for sub-section (1), the  following sub-section shall be substituted  :- “(1)  Where  probate  or  letters  of  administration has or have been granted  by a District Judge with the effect referred  to  in  the  proviso  to  section  273,  the  District  Judge  shall  send  a  certificate  thereof to the High Court to which such  District Judge is subordinate and to each  of the other High Courts.”. (4) Section 300 shall be omitted. (5) For Schedule IV, the following Schedule shall be substituted;- “SCHEDULE IV FORM OF CERTIFICATE I., A. B., ............ hereby certify that on the day of ......, ...... granted probate of the will (or letters of administration of the estate) of C.D., late of ......... deceased, to E. F. Of .. and G. H. Of ............ and that such probate (or letters) has (or have) effect over all the property of the deceased throughout India.”. Sections 2(bb) and 300 of the 1925 Act are also set out hereunder for the convenience:- “[2(bb) “District Judge” means the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction;]”. “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”. 13. “Wills, intestacy and succession” comes under entry 5 of List III (concurrent List) of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Both the Parliament and the legislature of the State are empowered to make laws in report of matters enumerated in the concurrent List in view of the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. The 1925 Act is a Central Legislation while the City Court Act is a State legislation. Both the Parliament and the legislature of the State are empowered to make laws in report of matters enumerated in the concurrent List in view of the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. The 1925 Act is a Central Legislation while the City Court Act is a State legislation. Section 2(bb) by virtue of the amendment in relation to the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta should be construed as the City Civil Court constituted under the City Court Act in reference to Principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction. This means reference in Part X and Schedule VIII of the 1925 Act to a “District Judge” shall be construed as reference to the City Civil Court. Section 22 and second schedule of the City Court Act also supports this construction. Part X of 1925 Act comprises of Sections 370 to 390 whereas Schedule VIII thereof refers to Section 377. The other amendment affecting the jurisdiction of this Court is omission of Section 300 of the 1925 Act by the 1980 amendment to City Court Act. The omission of Section 300 of the 1925 Act so far as it relates to taking away the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court, however, does not find place in the 1925 Act unlike the amendment of Section 2(bb) of the 1925 Act. Section 264 of the 1925 Act gives the jurisdiction to the “District Judge” to grant or revoke probates and Letters of Administration in all cases within his district. Considering the amendment to Section 2(bb) of the 1925 Act the natural corollary is that the City Civil Court should be treated as the Principal Civil Court for the district of Calcutta, i.e., the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court but at the same time Clause 34 of Letters Patent, 1865 retains the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of this Court. 14. The effect of the 1980 Amendment has been considered in details by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 1984(2) CHN 99 (In the goods of Sailendra Nath Sarkar, deceased). 14. The effect of the 1980 Amendment has been considered in details by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 1984(2) CHN 99 (In the goods of Sailendra Nath Sarkar, deceased). In the said report, it has been held that in a case where the deceased had the place of abode within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court and had left behind all his assets both movable and immovable it is the City Civil Court who will be competent to grant probate as Letters of Administration and not this Court irrespective of the value of the assets. It has been further held that in a case where the deceased had his place of abode outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court or all his properties and assets both movable and immovable are not within such jurisdiction, this Court will have the jurisdiction to issue grant and Letters of Administration. This judgment has been considered and followed in the subsequent judgments reported in 1993 (1) CWN 812 (In the goods of Smt. Tarak Bala Dasi, deceased), Prabir Kumar Das (supra) and 2017 (1) CLT (Cal) 417 (Sudesh Chandra Talwar vs. Seema Sarin & Anr.). I have no reasons to differ from this view. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2012 Cal 7 (Pandraj Kanjilal Sadh, deceased vs. Santosh Kumari Mahendra Kumar Sadh) had the occasion to consider Sailendra Nath Sarkar (supra) and Tarak Bala Dasi (supra) but has not dealt with the findings in the said two judgment apart from holding in paragraphs 18 and 19 as follows :- “18. After the amendment of the City Civil Court Act in the year 1980, the provision for grant of probate under the Indian Succession Act has been totally taken away from this Court and has been conferred upon the City Civil Court notwithstanding the provision contained in the Letters Patent and the consequent Rules mentioned in the Original Side Rules. 19. Therefore, after the aforesaid 1980 Amendment, any application under the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate can no longer be entertained by this Court in its Original Jurisdiction but should be entertained by the City Civil Court at Calcutta if the cause of action for filing such application has arisen within the limits of the Original side”. 16. 19. Therefore, after the aforesaid 1980 Amendment, any application under the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate can no longer be entertained by this Court in its Original Jurisdiction but should be entertained by the City Civil Court at Calcutta if the cause of action for filing such application has arisen within the limits of the Original side”. 16. This judgment, therefore, has to be considered in the light of the facts of the case that fell for consideration in the said report and not as an omnibus proposition. In that case the deceased died at Mumbai leaving a Will registered with the Sub-Registrar, Vikash Sadan, New Delhi. One of the immovable properties left behind by the deceased was within the Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction of this Court. The application for grant was filed in this Court on the basis of the immovable property within the jurisdiction. Section 271 of the 1925 Act gives a discretion to the judge of a district in which the deceased had no fixed abode to refuse the application for grant if in his judgment it could be disposed of more justly or conveniently in another district. No fixed abode of the deceased within the jurisdiction of this Court in Pandraj Kanjilal (supra) fell for consideration of the Division Bench in that case. The learned Single Judge whose judgment and order fell for consideration in the said case had the discretion to refuse the application on that ground. 17. In the instant case the testator had his permanent abode outside the jurisdiction of this Court, all properties and assets are also outside. No cause of action, therefore, has arisen within the City Civil Court at Calcutta to give the said Court the jurisdiction to try the instant suit. The Division Bench judgment therefore has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case being delivered in different set of facts. The Division Bench in that case as correctly held in Sudesh Chandra Talwar (supra) was considering whether this Court has original testamentary jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will and testament executed by a Hindu dying outside the State of West Bengal leaving behind properties situated within the territorial limits of the Original Side of this Court. Reading the Division Bench judgment in this context, I also find that the said judgment has no manner of application in the instant case. 18. Reading the Division Bench judgment in this context, I also find that the said judgment has no manner of application in the instant case. 18. The application being G.A No.5 of 2020 is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis after compliance with all necessary formalities.