Karnataka High Court
R. Pavan vs Smt Ekanthamma on 14 October, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CIVIL PETITION No.335 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. C.N.GEETHA
W/O LATE H.M.RAJAPPA,
AGED 49 YEARS.
(Deleted V/o dated 19.01.2018)
2. R.PAVAN,
S/O LATE H.M.RAJAPPA,
AGED 22 YEARS.
3. KUMARI.POOJA,
D/O LATE H.M.RAJAPPA,
AGED 16 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY
HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN.
SMT.C.N.GEETHA.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
DAYANANDA COLONY,
BEHIND RAILWAY SHED,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBBALLI TALUK,
DHARWARD DISTRICT-580023.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SADASHIVAIAH K.G, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.EKANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE H.M.RAJAPPA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
R/AT BIDARAKERE VILLAGE,
2
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
2. H.R.RADHA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O H.M.RAJAPPA,
W/O BHOGESH,
R/AT BIDARAKERE VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
3. H.R.NAGAVENI,
AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O H.M.RAJAPPA,
W/O GIRISH,
R/AT PRAJWAL SADAN,
MARAMMA STREET,
4TH CROSS, GARE HATTI,
CHITRADURGA TOWN AND
DISTRICT - 577 501.
4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL
PERSONAL OFFICER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBBALLI DIVISION,
HUBBALLI TOWN,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BALU MAHENDRA, ADV. FOR R1)
(BY SRI.M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADV., FOR R2 & R3) ( R4-SD)
THIS C.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE-PRAYING TO ORDER FOR
TRANSFER THE P & SC PETITION NO. 1/2017 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
AT HOLALKERE TO THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT HUBBALLI. AND ETC.,
THIS C.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to reiterating the contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners, invites my attention to the petition in P&SC No.1/2016 filed by respondent No.1 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere in order to point out that the schedule properties in the said petition were movable properties and not immovable properties of late H.M.Rajappa.
3. Petitioners herein who were arrayed as respondents in the said petition contended that the Court at Davanagere did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the proceedings in the light of the undisputed fact that the deceased- H.M.Rajappa expired in Hubballi and not in Davanagere and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1975, it was the jurisdictional Court at Hubbali, which had territorial 4 jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and not the Court at Davanagere.
4. Learned counsel also points out that the trial Court while allowing the application filed by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the Court at Davanagere did not have territorial jurisdiction and that the deceased H.M.Rajappa expired at Hubballi. However, instead of returning the petition and directing re-presenting it at Hubballi where the deceased expired, the trial Court directed respondent No.1 herein to re-present the petition to Court at Holalkere. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that deceased- H.M.Rajappa had possessed immovable properties at Holalkere and as such, it was the Court at Holalkere which possessed territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and consequently, the trial Court was justified in directing re- presentation at Holalkerre and as such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the petition in P&SC No.1/2016 indicate that the subject matter of the petition was movable properties of the deceased- H.M.Rajappa in respect of which succession certificate was sought for by respondent No.1. The said petition also indicates that the subject matter of the petition was not immovable properties of deceased- H.M.Rajappa situated at Holalkere.
8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1975 which reads as under:
"371. Court having jurisdiction to grant certificate- 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 this part."6
9. It can be seen from the aforesaid provision that the jurisdiction of the trial Court in relation to grant/issue of succession certificate is in relation to the place where the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death or where the movable properties of the deceased are situated.
10. In the instant case, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the deceased- H.M.Rajappa was ordinarily residing at Hubballi at the time of this death. As stated supra, the subject matter of P&SC was not immovable properties of deceased- H.M.Rajappa but the movable assets which were situated in Hubballi in the custody of H.M.Rajappa. Under these circumstances, the trial Court committed an error in directing the transfer of the pending petition in P&SC to Holalkere instead of Hubballi and as such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to returning the petition and directing re- presentation before the Court at Holalkere deserves to be set aside. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
7
ii) The impugned order dated 31.08.2017
insofar as it relates to directing the
respondent No.1/petitioner in P&SC
No.1/2016 to take return of the petition and re-present the same before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Holalkere is hereby set aside.
iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to re-present the said petition before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Hubballi.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.