Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mst. Somwati Tiwari And Ors. vs People In General on 8 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003MP278, 2003(1)MPHT340, AIR 2003 MADHYA PRADESH 278, (2004) 1 HINDULR 237, (2003) 3 MPLJ 512, (2003) 4 RECCIVR 742, (2003) 1 MPHT 340
ORDER S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a revision by the applicants against the order by which their appeal challenging the order of the rejection of their application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed.
2. Both the Courts below have taken the view that the Court in which the application under Section 372 of the Act was presented has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the application. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the two Courts below is erroneous and contrary to the provision made in Section 371 of the Act. The case of the applicants was that Motilal Tiwari was working as Section Commander in 11th Battalion at Bhilai. He died in a hospital in Jabalpur. It is clearly mentioned in the letter dated 19-5-2000 (Ex. P-2) of the Commandant, 11th Battalion, Bhilai that Motilal Tiwari was permanent resident of Village Marhi, District Satna and he was posted at Bhilai as Section Commander.
3. Section 371 of the Act provides that the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased "ordinarily resided" at the time of his death may grant a succession certificate. In the application under Section 372(1) of the Act "ordinary residence" of the deceased at the time of his death is to be stated. In the present case it was specifically stated in the letter referred above that deceased Motilal Tiwari was permanent resident of Village Marhi, District Satna. There was no rebuttal of this fact as the application for grant of succession certificate was not opposed by anyone. It has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar v. Bhanu Pratap, 1962 MPLJ Note 113, that the territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of grant of succession certificate is determined by the place where a person ordinarily resided. The term "reside" is not defined in the Act. But in the Oxford Dictionary it is stated to mean "dwelling permanently or for a considerable time, to have one's settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place".
4. In the present case there was documentary evidence to the effect that Motilal Tiwari was permanent resident of Village Marhi, District Satna. He was in Government service and he was being transferred from one place to the other. It is the permanent place where he resided that could also be considered to be the place of his ordinary residence. The word "resides" is a flexible one and has many shades of meaning. It must take its colour and content from the context in which it appears. If a person is a permanent resident of a particular place, there can be no doubt that he is ordinarily resident of that place. Similarly, if he is posted at a different place in connection with his service that place can also be termed as ordinary place of his residence for the purposes of Section 371 of the Act. The Courts at both the places would have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 372 of the Act. In this view of the matter the Court at Satna had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 372 of the Act for grant of succession certificate when there was no opposition by anyone. It is true that the application was not properly drafted and it was not specifically stated therein that the permanent residence of the deceased was Village Marhi, District Satna. But as already stated, that is established from the material on record. Now an application has been made before this Court under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment in the original application under Section 372 of the Act to make up that drafting deficiency. That application is allowed in the interest of justice. The amendment be incorporated in the original application before the Court where that application was submitted. The Courts should be sympathetic to the plight of the heirs who have applied for succession certificate. They should extend to them their helping hand in their misfortune. The approach of the Courts should be pragmatic. The Trial Court could direct the applicants to mention specifically in the application how the Court has territorial jurisdiction instead of taking a very strict view and rejecting it. It is borne out from the application that the heirs of the deceased are residing at Satna. Therefore, they should not have been directed to go to Bhilai, a distant place, to obtain the succession certificate in respect of the dues which were payable on the death of the deceased by his employer.
5. This revision is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. 1st Civil Judge Class I, Satna before whom the application under Section 372 of the Act was pending is directed to decide the application within two months. The applicants are directed to appear before that Court on 27-1-2002. The record of that Court be sent back within a week.