Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Doggupati Tirupalamma vs K.M. Subbamma on 5 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR1992AP222, (1992) 1 LS 82, AIR 1992 ANDHRA PRADESH 222, (1992) 1 ANDHWR 616, (1992) 1 APLJ 327, (1992) 1 ANDH LT 510
ORDER
1. Petitioner in O.P. No. 2/90, District Munsif s Court, Siddhout is the revision petitioner. Her son Krishna Seenaiah died in an accident at Kuwait on 26-2-84. The case for claiming death compensation for legal heirs of the deceased Seenaiah was handed over to Embassy's lawyer at Kuwait. Dinars 10,000/-(KD) was awarded as compensation. Out of it an amount of KD 1040 was deducted towards fees and expenses and the balance amount of KD 8960 was sent to Embassy for disbursement to the legal heirs of the deceased. The amount of Rupees 5,29,843.45 ps. equivalent to KD 8960, was deposited with the District Collector Cud-dapah for being paid to the legal heirs of deceased-Seenaiah. Then the revision petitioner filed O.P. praying for issual of succession certificate in the Court of District Munsif's Court, Siddhout. The learned Magistrate held that the said Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this application. But he also observed while returning the petition that no Court in Cuddapah can entertain this application. When the said petition was presented before the District Court, Cuddapah, the learned District Judge observed that if the petitioner feels that the observation of the District Munsif's Court, Sidhout that the Court in Cuddapah cannot entertain this application is erroneous, the same can be corrected in revision. Hence this revision petition was filed.
2. Section 371, Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act") provides that the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided, at the time of his death, or if at that time, he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found may grant a certificate under Part X of the Act. Section-388 of the Act empowers the State Government by notification in the official gazette to invest any Court inferior in grade to the District Judge with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the Act. In exercise of the said power, the State Government issued Notification as per G.O.Ms. No. 14J4, Home (General A) dt. 31st Oct., 1978 conferring the powers on all Courts of District Munsif s in the State with powers to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction.
3. The jurisdiction of District Munsif extends to all original suits and proceedings of civil nature, not otherwise exempted from his cognizance under any other law for the time being in force, if the amount or value of the subject-matter, of the same does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- as laid down under S. 16(2), A.P. Civil Courts Act as amended by A. -P. Act 30/89. Relying upon the said provision, the learned District Munsif held that the said Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction as the amount for which the succession certificate is applied for is more than Rs. 25,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when G.O.Ms. No. 1414 does not refer to pecuniary limit, it is open to the District Munsif to entertain an application praying for issual of succession certificate even if the amount for which the said certificate prayed for exceed Rs. 25,000/-. I felt that in view of the importance of the point that had arisen for consideration, it is proper to issue notice to the learned Government Pleader. On the basis of the said notice, Sri Nagaseshaiah, the learned Government Pleader for Home appeared and assisted the Court.
5. It was held in Bisesar Sheodayal v. Jaiman Bariayam, AIR 1940 Nagpur. 162 that if the inferior Court is invested with the powers of District Judge under S. 388(1) of the Act, it does not become a District Court but it merely exercises certain functions of the District Judge under Part X of the Act and thus the appeal against order of that inferior Court has to be filed before the Dist. Court. In that case the Additional District Judge acted as inferior Court in exercise of the functions of the District Judge under Part X of the Act. Even then it was held that the appeal against the order of Additional District Judge who exercised the functions of the inferior Court laid only before the District Judge and not in the High Court.
6. Can it then be stated that when a Court inferior to the District Judge is invested with the power to exercise the functions of the District Judge under Part X of the Act, it can entertain a proceeding involving an amount which exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction, Section 16(2) of A. P. Civil Courts Act limits the jurisdiction of the Munsif Court not only in regard to original suits but also to proceedings of civil nature. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court is now Rs.25,000/-. It cannot be stated that a petition filed under the Act praying for issual of succession certificate is not a proceeding of civil nature. As the appeal against order of such Court lies to the District Judge, it can be stated on that ground also, that the District Munsif can consider the application praying for issual of succession certificate if the amount for which said succession certificate is prayed for does not exceed its pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence even though the pecuniary jurisdiction is not referred to in G.C .Ms. No. 1414, it has to be so read for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif even in regard to proceedings of civil nature is fixed by S. 16(2) of A.P. Civil Courts Act.
7. The decision in Rengaraja v. Dulasibai Ammal, AIR 1949 Mad 818 is to the effect that the notification contemplated under S. 388(1) of the Act has to be issued by the State Government and not by the High Court. Therein the question had arisen as to whether the appeal lies against the order of the Court inferior to the District Judge in an application filed under Part X of the Act, if that Court was conferred with the said power only by notification issued by the High Court and not by the State Government. That question does not arise in this case as G.O.Ms. No. 1414 was issued by the State Government. Thus there is no need to further consider the above judgment.
8. Hence the_District Munsif in discharging the functions of the District Judge under Part X of the Succession Act, 1925 by virtue of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms. No. 1414 has to entertain the applications for issual of succession certificate which are within his pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. The next point that arises is as to whether the Court in Cuddapah District has no jurisdiction to entertain this applieation. It is not a case where the deceased son of the petitioner ordinarily resided at the time of his death in Cuddapah. He had also no fixed place of residence in Cuddapah. The expression 'no fixed place of residence' referred to in S. 371 of the Act means that the deceased has no fixed place of residence in India vide Krishnammal v. Lakshmi Ammal, (AIR 1951 Mad 353) (AIR 1951 Mad 718) (sic). But the amount in deposit for which the succession certificate is filed is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Cuddapah. It is necessary to read S. 371 of the Act in order to determine whether the Court at Cuddapah is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application, it is as under:--
"The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided, at the time of his death, or if at that time had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may .grant a certificate under this part."
This case comes within the scope of Second limb of S. 371. As already stated the deceased had no fixed place of residence in India, but he had fixed place of, residence at Dubai by the time of his death. As the expression, 'no fixed place of residence' has to be read as 'no fixed place of residence in India, then the District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a succession certificate. The amount which is in deposit with the District Collector, Cuddapah in regard to which this application was filed, is the property of the deceased to which, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to. Thus it is a case where part of the property of the deceased is within Cuddapah District. Hence the District Judge, Cuddapah is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application. So the application is returned to the petitioner for being presented before the District Judge, Cuddapah.
10. Before concluding I express my thanks to Sri Nagaseshaih the learned Government pleader for Home, for ably assisting this court on notice being issued.
11. The revision petition is accordingly ordered.
12. This petition having been set down for being mentioned as per the court's direction and upon perusing the judgment of this court dated 5-11-91 and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. N. N. Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Parvatesam, Advocate for the respondent and Mr. P. Nagaseshaiah, G. P. Home amicus curiae appear to assist the court for the respondent the court made the following ORDER
13. This revision petition is again called today for consideration whether the fee has to be fixed.
14. In the circumstances, the Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 500/-.
Order accordingly.