MOSTT. SAVITRI DEVI v. RAJU KUMAR

“In this application, I need not express any opinion on the merit of the rival claims. When two applications are filed claiming succession certificate in relation to the same deceased, it is only fair that both the applications must be heard and disposed of together, particularly, so when the applicant of one of the applications is not even made a party in the other application. In the instant case, the application filed by respondent no.1 Sardar Singh did not array the petitioner as one of the opposite parties. In may view the grant of the application filed by respondent no.1 rendered infructuous the application filed by the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge granting succession certificate to respondent no.1 should be set aside on this ground alone and the learned Sub-ordinate Judge should be directed to consider on merit respondent no.1 and the other filed by the petitioner.” applications; As may appear from the above, the question hearing succession certificate cases was being ordered together only when the two cases were pending hearing 4 and disposal. The facts of the present case as narrated above may indicate that the earlier succession case bearing No.21 of 1991 had been disposed of and a succession certificate had been granted to Raju Kumar rightly or wrongly. So it could not be said that that particular succession certificate case was pending. What was pending in that connection is the revocation petition and as was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, the court was required to hold an enquiry as may appear from the allegations and statement of facts made by the petitioner before the court below seeking revocation of the already granted succession certificate. Thus, the decision cited before me by learned counsel for the petitioner appears completely different and distinguishable on its own special facts. In order to succeeding on a petition of revocation, it is desirable that the petitioner should lead evidence in support of her statements and allegation. The reason could be simple that a right has been created by issuing a succession certificate in favour 5 of a person. It may shift a heavy onus upon the petitioner who has asserted a particular fact so as to seeking revocation of the existing succession certificate to dislodge the grounds which were utilized while granting succession certificate. This could not be done merely by filing a petition or stating that the petitioner had led evidence a different case. The succession certificate case bearing No.21 of 1991 stands disposed of. If the court finds sufficient material and good reasons for revocation of the succession certificate then only there could be a question of hearing the two petitions. As things stand presently, I do not think directing the hearing of two cases. However, I direct the court hearing succession case no.7 of 1992 to first take up the hearing of the revocation petition on expedition and dispose it of, then hear the succession certificate case filed by the petitioner bearing No.7 of 1992. The revocation petition must be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order and both 6 petitions in five months. While hearing the present revision petition, I came across the fact that Sub- ordinate Judge I, Gaya, hearing succession certificate cases. It appears that Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act contains a provision for delegating the power to Sub-ordinate Judge by the District Judge for hearing and disposal of the matters which are falling within the original jurisdiction of the District Judge. This arrangement was made while creating new districts or on account of certain exigencies and heavy work load upon the District Judge. Now that new districts have been created by carving new areas out of older ones, it is simply not proper that that delegated powers could be continued in the Officer of the rank of Sub- ordinate Judge. I could direct the Registrar General of the Court to place this matter before the Court so as to issuing necessary direction as regards the jurisdiction of the original court in successions and other matters which fall within the original jurisdiction of the District Judge. 7 This revision petition is dismissed with the above directions. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)