CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Rangarajan

Succession Act and prayed for passing necessary orders to callfor the original petition from the file of the learned DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukkazhukundram and totransmit the same to Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu in theinterest of justice.3.The matter was called in open court on 18.02.2003 and itwas heard and posted for orders on 31.12.2003 by the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Chengalpattu. The learned PrincipalDistrict Judge, Chengalpattu, passed an order on the Memo filedby the petitioners dated 10.10.2003 observing that ‘the totalvalue of the security after deducting the funeral expenses andmedical expenses is Rs.28,800/- which could be the value of thesuit in the event of the transfer from the file of the DistrictCourt, testamentary jurisdiction to the file of the originaljurisdiction as contentious suit and in that circumstances, thevalue of the suit has to be considered as Rs.28,800/- which wouldconsequently attract the jurisdiction of the District MunsifCourt, Thirukkazhukundram and therefore, the suit has to benumbered on the file of the District Munsif Court,Thirukkazhukundram and hence, the transfer effected by this Courtstands good and retransfer of the suit cannot be ordered’.4.Aggrieved against the orders passed by the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Chengalpattu, on the Memo dated10.10.2003 filed by the revision petitioners/petitioners, thepresent Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.5.Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits thatthe order passed by the learned Principal District Judge,Chengalpattu, on the Memo dated 10.10.2003 is manifestlyerroneous and opposed to law and that the court below has overlooked the fact that the Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to trycontentious matter arising out of Indian Succession Act. He alsofurther contended that section 266 of the Indian Succession Actis a bar for conducting the proceeding before any Court otherthan the District Munsif or its delegate and that the CivilCourts Act has no application to the present case, as theproceeding under Indian Succession Act is a special procedure andthat the general law has no application and therefore, prayed forallowing the revision by setting aside the order dated 30.12.2003passed on the Memo filed.6.Section 2[bb] of the Indian Succession Act defines theterms 'District Judge' means a Judge of a Principal Civil Courtof original jurisdiction.7.Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends thatin regard to the grant of Probate and Letters of Administration,the jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts have been clearly speltout in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1962 [2]MLJ 18 between R.RAMA SUBBARAYALU REDDIAR VS. RENGAMMAL, wherein https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at pages 321 to 323, it is observed as follows:“The Indian Succession Act, 1925, is aconsolidating stature which repealed and re-enacted several statutes which dealt withsuccession to and protection of the property of adeceased person. Certain parts of it relate toparticular class of citizens or to disposition ofproperties situate in the formers PresidencyTowns. It is unnecessary to examine them now.Chapter VI of Part IX of the Act relates to thepractice and procedure in the matter of grantingand revoking probate of a will or Letters ofadministration to the estate of a deceasedperson. Section 264 confers jurisdiction on theDistrict Judge to grant or revoke probate orletters of administration. Section 265 lays downthat the High Court may appoint such judicialofficers within any district as it thinks fit toact for the District Judge as delegates to grantprobate and letters of administration in non-contentious matters. A District Delegate’spowers in that regard is however circumscribed.The distinction between the powers of a DistrictJudge and District Delegate is that while theformer, can grant probate or letters ofadministration where the deceased at the time ofhis death had fixed abode or where any propertymovable or immovable is alone situate within hisjurisdiction, the District Delegate can grantthem only in the former class of cases [videsections 270 and 273 of the Act]. The DistrictDelegate can only dispose of non-contentiouscases: once a contest arises he will have totransfer the case to the District Judge. Anapplication for revocation of a grant originallymade in a non-contentious proceeding cannot evenbe decided by him [Vide Section 286] as the veryfiling of the application for revocation willraise a contest. A District Delegate can alsorefer a non-contentious matter for disposal bythe District Judge. There is also a difference inregard to the conclusiveness of a grant made bythe District Delegate and the District Judge.The limited jurisdiction granted to DistrictDelegate is not a peculiar feature of theSuccession Act of 1925. It existed in theearlier Succession Act of 1865 and the Probateand Administration Act of 1881. Under thoseenactments [as well as under the present Act] allcontentious proceedings, and all thoseproceedings in which the deceased at the time ofhis death did not have permanent abode within the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisdiction of the District Delegate whethercontentious or not had to be disposed of by theDistrict Judge. Accumulation of work in theDistrict Court became inevitable. The Bengal,Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, made aprovision by section 23 therein enabling the HighCourt by a general or special order to authorizeany subordinate Judge or Munsif to takecognizance or any District Judge to transfer to aSubordinate Judge or Munsif under hisadministrative control any contentious proceedingunder the Indian Succession Act, 1865 and Probateand Administration Act, 1881. There was asimilar legislative provision in the Punjab CivilCourts Act, 1918, the Central Provinces CourtsAct, 1917 and the Bombay Civil courts Act, 1869,the respective statutory provisions beingsections 30,19 and 28-A. No such provision wasmade originally in the Madras Civil Courts Act,1873. Sub-clause [1] to that section, whichalone is relevant to the subject underconsideration, states:'The High Court may be general or specialorder authorize any Subordinate Judge totake cognizance of, or any District Judgeto transfer to any Subordinate Judge underhis control any proceeding under the IndianSuccession Act, 1925, which cannot bedisposed of by the District Delegates.'The terms of the section are clear. Itauthorizes a disposal by the Subordinate Judge ofany proceeding under the Indian Succession Act,1925, other than those that could be disposed ofby the District Delegate. The clause relating totransfer also emphasizes the fact that a Sub-Judge duly authorized can dispose of allproceedings that could be disposed of by theDistrict Judge himself. The words “cognizanceof” will imply a right to deal with the matterlegally and judicially and will also include apower to entertain such proceedings. Thereforethe jurisdiction of a Sub Judge invested with apower under section 29[1] of the Madras CivilCourts Act is that of a District Judge and notthat of District Delegate under Succession Act.This view is also borne out by sub-clause [3] tothat section which provides a right of appealfrom the decision of a Subordinate Judgeauthorized under clause [1] as if he is aDistrict Judge. Thus a notification under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above section confers a new jurisdiction on aSub-Judge to decide all matters, under theSuccession Act which cannot be disposed of by aDistrict Delegate.Much of the argument before us proceeded onthe assumption, an assumption for which there isno warrant, that the notification under section29[1] of the Madras Civil Courts Act confers ajurisdiction on a District Delegate, [Sub-Judge]to dispose of mattes which he would have nojurisdiction to do directly under the provisionsof the Indian Succession Act, 1925. A districtDelegate appointed under section 265 owes hisauthority to that source; but a Sub-Judge who isinvested with jurisdiction under a notificationunder section 29[1] of the Madras Civil CourtsAct has a different jurisdiction. Thus there isa distinction between the two authorities. Forone thing a notification under section n265 canauthorize any judicial officer not necessarily aSub-Judge, to perform the duties given under thestatute to District alone can deal with thematters specified therein. It will also benoticed that the notification made by this Courtitself makes the distinction; it consists of twoparts [1]empowering Sub-Judges under section 265of the Succession Act so as to enable them to trynon-contentious cases; [2] empowering Sub-Judgesunder section 29[1] of the Madras Civil CourtsAct to take cognizance of all proceedings whichthey could not do qua District Delegates. Thelatter jurisdiction therefore, cannot be the sameas that of a District Delegate.Mr.V.Ramaswami appearing for the appellantin an able argument contended that what section29 of the Civil Courts Act intended in effect toachieve was to confer a power on DistrictDelegates which section 286 of the IndianSuccession Act expressly prohibited them fromexercising. Learned counsel further submittedthat if the Legislature did really intend toconfer an unrestricted jurisdiction on theSubordinate Judges they could have simply amendedin an appropriate manner the Indian SuccessionAct and that a harmonious construction of the twostatutory provisions would require that the Sub-Judge authorized under section 29[1] of theMadras Civil Courts Act could do nothing morethan what a District Delegate could. Thiscontention, if accepted, would make section 29[1] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Civil Courts Act a dead letter and wouldperpetuate the very mischief which was attemptedto be remedied; it is also against the plainterms of the section.In a recent case S.A.No.179 of 1959 mylearned brother Veeraswami, J. had to considerthe precise question and in the Course of hisJudgment observed:-'As I said, in view of the provisions ofsections 265 and 286 of the IndianSuccession Act, there can be no doubt thata District Delegate is not competent todeal with a contentious testamentarymatter. But the power of the SubordinateJudge of Tuticorin to deal with such amatter is not rested upon the provision inPart IX of the Indian Succession Act, buton the power delegated to him by thenotification of the High Court undersection 29[1] of the Madras Civil CourtsAct.'If I may say so with respect this is anaccurate statement of the position. The questionis not whether the Legislature could have betterachieved its object by making suitable amendmentto the Indian Succession Act but rather whetherthey have done so by introducing section 29 inthe Madras Civil Courts Act, which is also aCentral enactment. It must be noticed that therewas legislation in most of the other Provinces orStates conferring jurisdiction on Sub-Judges,etc., if they were to be invested with thenecessary powers by the High Court to trycontentious cases. The cause and necessity forlegislation was therefore peculiar to the MadrasProvince, where there was need to conferjurisdiction on courts other than those ofDistrict Judge, similar to those existing inother States. Evidently, it was thoughtsufficient, if the Madras Civil Courts Act werealone amended. Nor are we able to accept theargument, that there is any inconsistency betweensection 265 of the Indian Succession Act andsection 29 of the Madras Civil Courts Act andthat both of them cannot stand together unlessthey are interpreted in the way contended for.The two provisions deal with distinct matters,the former with those entrusted to DistrictDelegates and the latter to all the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matters.”8.Learned counsel also cited the decision in 1980T.N.L.J. page 471 between ANNAMMAL AND OTHERS VS. SANTAGU ANDOTHERS, wherein it is held in pages 473 to 475 as follows:“Under Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act,jurisdiction is conferred on the District Judgeto grant or revoke probate or letters ofadministration. The expression “District Judge”is defined by section 2[bb] as meaning the Judgeof a Principal Civil Court of originaljurisdiction. Provision is made under section265 of the Act for the appointment of judicialofficers within the district as the High Courtmay think fit to act for the District Judge asDelegates in non-contentious matters relating tothe grant of probate or letters ofadministration. However, it is necessary to bearin mind that the powers of the District Delegateare circumscribed and while the District Delegatecan grant probate or letters of administrationwhen the deceased at the time of his death hadfixed abode, the District Judge can grant theprobate or letters of administration where thedeceased had a fixed abode or where any propertymovable or immovable is alone situate within hisjurisdiction. The District Delegate is empoweredonly to dispose of non-contentious cases and ifonce a contest is raised, the matter has got tobe referred to the District Judge. Anapplication for revocation of a grant made in anon-contentious proceeding cannot be decided bythe District Delegate as the very filing of anapplication for revocation would raise a contest.The non-contentious matter can also be referredby a District Delegate to the District Judge. Inaddition, even on the question of conclusivenessof a grant made by the District Delegate and aDistrict Judge, there is a difference. It is notas if the limited jurisdiction conferred on theDistrict Delegate was something very peculiar tothe is only. But even in the earlier enactments,the difference in the scope of the jurisdictionof the Delegate and the District Judge had beenmaintained. As a consequence of this, there wasa large-scale accumulation of work in theDistrict Court which led to the passing of thelegislation in several States with a view toenable the High Court to authorize anySubordinate Judge or even Munsif to takecognizance of or any District Judge to transferto a Subordinate Judge or Munsif any contentious https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1865and the Probate and Administration Act, 1881. Inso far as Tamil Nadu is concerned., originally,the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 was passedand no provision for any transfer as such hadbeen made therein. This was noticed later whichled to the passing of the Act XIV of 1926 whichintroduced Section 29 of the Tamil nadu CivilCourts Act, 1873. Sub-section [2] provided thatthe District Judge may withdraw any suchproceedings taken cognizance of by, ortransferred to, a Subordinate Judge, and anyeither himself dispose of them or transfer themto a Court under his control competent to disposeof them. Under sub-section [3] it was providedthat notwithstanding anything contained insection n13, proceedings taken cognizance of by,or transferred to a Subordinate Judge under theprovisions of this section shall be disposed ofby him subject to the law applicable to likeproceedings when disposed of by the DistrictJudge. It is necessary to refer to twoNotifications which conferred jurisdiction on SubCourts to deal with matters for the grant ofprobate of a will. Under the terms of theNotifications made by this Court under section265 of the Indian Succession Act, all SubordinateJudges in Madras Province have been appointed ex-officio District Delegates under that enactmentwithin the local limits of the respectivejurisdiction. By another Notification undersection n29 [1] of the Tamil Nadu Civil courtsAct referred to above, all Subordinate Judges inMadras Province have been authorized to takecognizance of any proceedings under the IndianSuccession Act, 1925 which cannot be disposed ofby the District Delegates [vide Civil Rules ofPractice, Volume I, p.275]. It is at onceobvious that the power of transfer of a DistrictJudge in matters arising under the provisions ofthe Indian Succession Act is referable to section29[1] and by virtue of the second Notificationreferred to above, the Subordinate Judge isinvested with the jurisdiction to try aproceeding of the nature now under consideration.The question that arises now is, whether the SubCourt, exercising the jurisdiction in a matterunder the provisions of the Indian Succession Acttransferred to it is acting as a courtsubordinate to the District Court or whether itis a court of concurrent jurisdiction with theDistrict Court so that any order passed by it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would be appealable to this Court under section299 of the Indian Succession Act. It is truethat under Section 264, jurisdiction is conferredon District Judge to grant or revoke probate orletters of administration. But by the combinedeffect of Section 29[1] of the Tamil Nadu CivilCourts Act and the second Notification referredto above, the investiture of jurisdiction on Sub-courts in such matters is not to take away thejurisdiction conferred on the District Judge,with the result that both the District Judge aswell as the Subordinate Judge will haveconcurrent jurisdiction for trying mattersarising within the jurisdiction of the DistrictJudge. The circumstance that proceedings for thegrant of probate have been taken in the Sub Courtis only in conformity with the provisions of theCode of Civil Procedure that the proceedingsshould be initiated only in the Court of a lowergrade competent to try. If the jurisdiction isexercised by a Sub Court in a proceeding receivedon transfer from the District Court pursuant toSection 29[1] of the Act and the Notification,then the Sub Court is really exercising thejurisdiction of the District Judge. Thisposition is well established by the Full Benchdecision in 1962 II MLJ p.318. It is therefore,obvious from the aforesaid Full Bench that thejurisdiction of the District Court as well as ofthe Sub court is concurrent in a matter like thisand the effect of the order passed by theSubordinate Judge is the same as that passed bythe District Judge exercising his functions underthe provisions of Indian Succession Act. It isalso significant to note that there is noprovision in the Indian Succession Act whichmakes available a remedy by way of an appeal asagainst an adjudication made by a Sub Court in aproceeding under the Act received on transferfrom the District Court. The provisionscontained in Section 388 of the Indian SuccessionAct cannot be applied to a case like the presentas the provisions therein are confined to mattersunder Part X of the Act relating to successioncertificates and would not apply to Chapter IV,wherein provision has been made for grantingprobates under section 264 and an appeal has alsobeen provided for under section 299 of the IndianSuccession Act.”9.It is the contention of the revision petitioners thatDistrict Munsif Court cannot be treated as Principal Court of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ original jurisdiction and Act 28 of 1995 did not amend section 29of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act in regard to the exercise ofpowers by Subordinate Judge of jurisdiction of District incertain proceedings. Section 266 of the Indian Succession Actinvests the District Judge as a Probate Court with all the powersof ordinary civil court which he has in relation to any suit orproceedings pending in his court. The proceedings for the grantor revocation of probate or letters of administration have beenheld to attract the procedure of the Civil Procedure Code.Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 speaks of thepetition for letters of administration. As per section 265 ofthe Indian Succession Act, 1925, the High Court is authorized toappoint delegates for granting probates and letters ofadministration in non-contentious cases within certain limits andthe appointments must be made from judicial officers withinparticular District concerned. If the Subordinate Judge and theDistrict Delegate are one and the same person, he can havejurisdiction to dispose of contentious proceedings if suchproceedings have been transferred to him in his capacity asSubordinate Judge by order of the District Judge or when aGovernment Notification under the relevant Act, for example,under section 29[1] of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873, hasempowered Sub Judge to take cognizance and dispose of contentiousproceedings. The Sub Judge under the new jurisdiction so created,can dispose of the contentious proceedings and this newjurisdiction is not tantamount to taking away the jurisdiction ofthe District Judge over contentious proceedings.10.In AIR 1967 GUJARAT PAGE 214 between BAI ZABU KHIMA VS.AMARDAS BALAKDAS, it is observed as follows:“Succession Act [1925], Senior Superintendent.265and 288 – Effect of sections read together isthat a Civil Judge, senior division who is aDistrict Delegate cannot grant letters ofadministration in contentious applications –Saurashtra District and Subordinate Civil CourtsOrdinance [1948], S.28-A[1] – High Court’sNotification dated 30.07.1948 – Ordinanceempowers High Court to invest powers of aDistrict Judge on any Civil Judge – Notificationby the High Court conferring all the powers of aDistrict Judge on all Civil Judges of SeniorDivision – The Civil Judge can, therefore,entertain a contention – such power has not beenaffected by the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 –[Bombay Civil Courts Act [14 of 1869], S.28-A] –Bombay Civil Courts [Extension and Amendment] Act[94 of 1958], S.8 proviso – Effect of, is tocontinue High Court’s Notification as if issuedunder S.28-A, Bombay Civil Courts Actnotwithstanding repeal of ordinances.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.It is pertinent to point out that Section 388 of theIndian Succession Act, 1925 deals with the investiture of an ofan inferior Court with the jurisdiction of the District Court forthe purposes of this Act and the appealability of the ordersorders of such inferior Courts to the District Judge. In AIR1949 MADRAS 818 between G.RANGARAJA RAO VS. A.THULASIBAI AMMAL,it is held as follows:"The proper way of construing S.29[1], MadrasCivil Courts Act and S.388, Succession Act is tosay that the general words of S.29[]1, MadrasCivil Courts Act, should be limited toproceedings under the Succession Act other thanPart X for which the special provision in S.388of the Act alone will apply. If the generalwords of S.29[1], Madras Civil Courts Act areinterpreted as including also proceedings underPart X, Succession Act, it might result in aninconsistency and possibly in a conflict ofpowers between the High Court and the ProvincialGovernment. The two sections have got to be readtogether and reconciled in such a manner thatthey do not lead to conflict of powers orjurisdiction: AIR [19] Mad.456, Disting. [para6].Where apart from the notification of 1939made in exercise of the powers under S.29[1],Madras Civil Courts Act, there has been nospecial notification empowering the SubordinateJudge's Court of Cuddalore under either the oldS.26, Succession Certificate Act, or the newS.388, Succession Act, the Subordinate Judge'sCourt of Cuddalore has no jurisdiction at all toentertain an application for successioncertificate and this is not a matter which can becured by S.21, Civil p.c. A notification by theHigh Court under S.29, Madras Civil Courts Actalone would not vest jurisdiction in aSubordinate Judge to issue a successioncertificate under Part X, Succession Act."12.In AIR 1972 MADRAS 338 between VELLAIAMMAL VS.VELLAICHAMY, it is observed that:"So far as an appeal which was preferred toDistrict Judge from an inferior Court wasconcerned, there was no provision for transfer ofan appeal. There was also no provision in theAct which empowered Subordinate Judge to hearappeal. Though High Court had powers underSection 29, Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authorise any District Judge to transfer to anySubordinate Judge under his control anyproceeding under Succession Act, it had not soempowered and therefore, Subordinate Judge had nojurisdiction to hear appeal."13.It is useful to refer section 29 of the Tamil Nadu CivilCourts Act, 1873 which runs as follows:“29.EXERCISE BY SUBORDINATE JUDGE OFJURISDICTION OF DISTRICT IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS:-[1]The High Court may, by general or specialorder, authorize any Subordinate Judge to takecognizance of, or any District Judge to transferto any Subordinate Judge under his control, anyproceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925[Central Act XXXIX of 1925], which cannot bedisposed of by District Magistrates.[2]The District Judge may withdraw any suchproceedings taken cognizance of by, ortransferred to, a Subordinate Judge, and mayeither himself dispose of them or transfer themto a Court under his control competent to disposeof them.[3]Notwithstanding anything contained inSection 13, proceedings taken cognizance of by,or transferred to, a Subordinate Judge under theprovisions of this section shall be disposed ofhim subject to the law applicable to likeproceedings when disposed of by the DistrictJudge.”14.The vesting of authority in a Subordinate Judge toentertain and dispose of contentious applications for Probateetc., under section 29[1] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act takeaway the jurisdiction of the District Judge over such matters adthe resultant effect is that both the Subordinate Judge and theDistrict Judge will have concurrent jurisdiction to takecognizance of contentious applications for probate etc., relatingto matters arising within the jurisdiction of the former. As amatter of fact, Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure oustthe District Court of its jurisdiction.15.In HIRALAL VS. KHUSHALI RAM [15 CPLR 54], it is held that"a Civil Judge is not inferior to a District Judge and cannot beinvested with the functions of a District Court under thisSection." In ANANTHAMATHI VS. RATNAVATHI [AIR 1977 KARNATAKA201], it is held that "the Munsifs Court in South Kanara Districthas jurisdiction to grant the succession certificate." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.In AIR 1977 ORISSA 88 between INDRAMANI VS. HEMA DIVYA,it is observed that "an order granting succession certificate canbe challenged by a regular suit without filing an appeal under384 of the Indian Succession Act". In AIR 1998 MP 114 betweenSAVITRI DEVI VS. MANORAMA, it is held that "the choice of eitherfiling an appeal against grant of certificate or filing a suitchallenging the certificate is with the party."17.According to learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners, section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act inregard to 'exercise by Subordinate Judge of jurisdiction ofDistrict Judge in certain proceedings', no way contemplatesDistrict Munsif Court and as per section 29 of the Tamil NaduCivil Courts Act only the District Judge and the SubordinateJudge are visualized.18.The G.O.M.S.No.563 dated 28.11.1995 issued by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu deals refers to the conferment of powerin dealing with application for succession certificates under theIndian Succession Act. As per the notification issued by theGovernment in the aforesaid Government Order, 'all Courts ofDistrict Munsifs below Rs.30,000/- and all Courts of SubordinateJudges above Rupees Thirty Thousand' are conferred with the powerto exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of thesaid Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdictionin respect of the property, debt, security or any other thing ofvalue specified in the corresponding entry in column [2] thereof.The aforesaid Government Order dated 28.11.1994 issued by theGovernment supercedes the notification of the Law Departmentissued with G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 01.04.1982.19.By virtue of Act 28 of 1995 in the Tamil Nadu CivilCourts Act,1873, an amendment under section 12, in the secondparagraph, the words 'fifteen thousand rupees' and 'thirtythousand rupees' were substituted. As per section 4[2] of theAct 28 of 1995, it is envisaged that 'all suits and proceedingsof which the amount or value of the subject matter exceedsRs.15,000/- but does not exceed Rs.30,000/- pending in any SubCourt or District Court, as the case may be, on the date ofcommencement of this Act, shall stand transferred to the Court ofthe District Munsif having jurisdiction over the matter'.20.As per Act 1 of 2004 in the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act,1873,[1]in section 12:-[a]For the first paragraph, the following paragraph shall besubstituted, namely-"The jurisdiction of a District Judge extends,subject to the rules contained n the Code ofCivil Procedure, to all original suits andproceedings of a civil nature, of which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount or value of the subject matter exceeds tothe rules contained in the Code of CivilProcedure, to all like original suits andproceedings, of which the amount or value of thesubject matter exceeds one lakh rupees but doesnot exceed five lakh rupees.[b]in the second paragraph, for the expression, 'thirtythousand rupees' the expression 'one lakh rupess' shall besubstituted.21.As per Transitory provision of section 4[2] of the TamilNadu Civil Courts Act, all suits pending before an AssistantJudge; an Additional Judge or a Principal Judge or in the HighCourt or on the date of commencement of the Act and which wouldbe within the cognizance of the Chennai City Civil Court underthe provisions of the Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1872[Central Act VII of 1892], as amended by this Act, shall standtransferred to the Assistant Judge, Additional Judge or thePrincipal Judge, having jurisdiction over the subject matter.22.In High Court circular bearing ROC.No.1849/2002/F1,P.Dis.No.1/2004, the date of commencement of the Act 1 of 2004was mentioned as 08.01.2004 and further, that consequent to theaforesaid amendment made in the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873and to the Madras City Civil Courts Act, 1892 and in accordancewith the Transitory provisions of the Act 1 of 2004, all thePrincipal District Judges were directed to take immediate stepsto see that:"[1]All suits pending in a Subordinate Court orDistrict Court on the date of commencement of theAct and which would be within the cognizance ofthe District Munsif's Court, Subordinate Court orDistrict Court, under the provisions of the TamilNadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 [Central Act III of1873], as amended by the Act, shall standtransferred to the Court having jurisdiction overthe subject matter and the Principal Judge, CityCivil Court, Madras, was directed to see that allsuits pending before an Assistant Judge, anAdditional Judge or a Principal Judge or in theHigh Court on the date of the commencement ofthis Act, and which would be within thecognizance of the Chennai City Civil Court underthe provisions of the Madras City Civil CourtAct, 1892 [Central Act VII of 1892], as amendedby this Act shall stand transferred to theAssistant Judge, Additional Judge or thePrincipal Judge, having jurisdiction over thesubject matter, without fail, immediately." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.The definition 'District Judge' under section 2[bb] ofthe Indian Succession Act means the Judge of a Principal CivilCourt of original jurisdiction. Section 2[4] of the Code ofCivil Procedure defines 'District' which means the local limitsof the jurisdiction of a Principal Civil Court of originaljurisdiction [hereinafter called as District Court], and includesthe local limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of aHigh Court. In the goods of Mahendra Narain Roy, the deceased, 5CWN page 377, it is held that the 'High Court' in Section 87 ofthe Probate and Administration At [5 of 1881] was not merelyconfined to the Appellate jurisdiction of that Court, butincluded its original jurisdiction and that, under that sectionthe High Court exercising its original jurisdiction hadconcurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge. The expression'District Judge' in section 295 of the Indian Succession Act aselsewhere in the said Act means and includes a Judge of the HighCourt sitting on the original side of the High Court exercisingtestamentary and intestate jurisdiction. In HURAN V. HIGAN-34ALL 148 [149], it is held that an appeal from an order of aMunsif invested under section 388 with the functions of theDistrict Court lies to the dh only, an the District Judge cannottransfer an appeal for hearing to any Subordinate Court [eg., TheCourt of the Sub Judge or the Court of a Judge of Small Causes].Sub-section [1] of Section 384 or the proviso to Sub-section [2]of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, does not contain anyrestriction to these provisions do state that an appeal shall lieto the High Court or the District Judge as the case may be. 24.In 1985 [1] M.L.J. PAGE 16 between MRS.ELIZABETH ANTONYV. M.C.G.C.LOAGMORE, it is held as follows:"[A]Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act [III of 1873],section 29[1] – Notification – jurisdiction ofthe Subordinate Judge and the District Judge, toentertain proceedings of contentious naturearising under Indian Succession Act for grant ofProbate or Letters of Administration –jurisdiction concurrent."25.As far as the present case is concerned, the proceedingis one for the proof of the Will and not for an investigationinto the matters of complex and disputed interse claims to titleto the property dealt with under the Will, in the consideredopinion of this Court.26.It appears that after the amendment of Tamil Nadu CivilCourts Act, 1873 by Act 1 of 2004 wherein the jurisdiction ofDistrict Munsif was extended to all like suits and proceedings, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not otherwise exempted from his cognizance, of which amount, orthe value of subject matter does not exceed Rs.1 lakh underSection of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, there is noGovernment order issued conferring powers on al courts ofDistrict Munsifs and to Courts of Subordinate Judges to deal withapplication for succession certificate under the IndianSuccession Act, 1925, like the one issued under G.O.Ms.No.563dated 28.11.1995 which deals with the power of all Courts ofDistrict Munsifs and all Courts of District Judges to deal withapplication for succession certificates. It is significant torefer that section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873,speaks of jurisdiction of a District Judge which extends, subjectto the Rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure to alloriginal suits and proceedings of a civil nature of which theamount or value of the subject matter exceeds ‘Five lakh rupees’and the jurisdiction of Sub Judge extends, subject to the rulescontained in the Code of Civil Procedure, to all like originalsuits and proceedings of which the amount or the value of thesubject matter exceeds one lakh rupees but does not exceed fivelakh rupees.27.No doubt, the G.O.M.S.No.563 dated 28.11.1995 conferspower on all Courts of District Munsifs and all Courts ofSubordinate Judge to exercise the functions of a District Judgeunder Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 within the locallimits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of property,debt, security or any other thing or value specified therein. Itcannot be in dispute that the testamentary jurisdiction is acivil proceeding. As a matter of fact, earlier, the Governmentof Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.Ms.No.563 dated 28.11.1995 investingthe inferior Courts with jurisdiction of District Court for thepurpose of Succession Act exercising its powers under Sub-section[1] of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [CentralAct XXXIX of 1925]. Before the learned Principal District Judge,Chengalpattu, a Memo was filed on 10.10.2003 in S.O.P.No.114 of2002 by the revision petitioners herein as petitioners and it wasrequested by both sides to treat the main Original Petition as asuit and transmit the same to Sub Court, Chengalpattu on theground that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the matter works out toRs.34,000/- triable by the Sub Court and further, it was alsomentioned that the District Court which ordered the transmissionof the S.O.P.No.114 of 2002 to the file of the learned DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukkazhukundram, did not havejurisdiction to try the testamentary succession as per section 2[bb] of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and prayed for necessaryorders being passed to call for the original petition from thefile of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Thirukkazhukundram, and pass orders to transmit the same toPrincipal Sub Court, Chengalpattu in the interest of justice andthe matter was heard on 18.12.2003 and orders were passed on31.12.2003 inter-alia stating that the value of the suit has tobe considered as Rs.28,800/- which would squarely attracted the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif – cum - JudicialMagistrate, Thirukkazhukundram, and therefore, the suit was to benumbered in that Court and therefore, the transfer effected holdsgood and retransfer of the suit cannot be ordered.28.It is pertinent to refer that Section 29 of the TamilNadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, does not refer to the term ‘DistrictMunsif’. In such a situation, this Court is of the consideredview that the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattuought to have passed orders on the Memo dated 10.10.2003 indealing with the said S.O.P.No.114 of 2002 and entertaining thesame, since as per section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act,1873, he has the concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, to avoidall technical difficulties, this Court directs that the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Chengalpattu should withdraw theS.O.P.No.114 of 2002 from the file of the learned DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukkazhukundram, and deal withthe said matter himself and to dispose of the same in accordancewith law to serve the ends of justice.29.In the light of the above discussions, the Civil RevisionPetition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as tocosts. Since the main matter is disposed of, the connectedmiscellaneous petition in CMP.No.10071 of 2006 is dismissed.30.Before parting, this Court suggests that the StateGovernment may by notification in the Official Gazette invest theconcerned Courts inferior in grade, to a District Judge withpower to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part Xof the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as per section 388 of the saidAct.ApSd/Asst.Registrar04/12/07Corrected as per the order of the Hon'ble MVJSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Principal District Judge,//Chengalpattu.// TO BE SUBSTITUTED TO THE // ORDER ALREADY DESPATCHED•1 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, // ON. 11.12.2007.Advocate SR.70582//NG(CO)SR/5.12.2007sg 08/01/08CRP.NPD.No.827/2004