1 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 29th February 2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural], at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, rejecting application Exh.25 moved by the petitioners herein raising a preliminary objection in C.M.A. No.74 of 2010, to the effect that the said Court has no jurisdiction.
2 Initially, with incorrect cause title mentioning 'City Civil Court, Ahmedabad', an application was presented before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural], at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, for obtaining a succession certificate as required under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, [for short, 'the Act'], which application was, as per the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural], Ahmedabad, transferred and ordered to be taken up by the Court of learned 6th Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural], at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.
3 As per the list of properties mentioned, for which succession certificate was sought, the properties are situated at 6, Jaydeep Apartment, behind Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, and the said area is, admittedly, under the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural], at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. Not only that, other items, for which succession certificate was sought, are movable and, therefore, considering the above aspects, in paragraph 7 of the order dated 29th February 2012, the Court below decided the issue of jurisdiction as under:
"7. As per the case pleaded by the applicant that the deceased Renukaben Promodbhai Bhatt has died at Ahmedabad and she was residing at Ahmedabad at the address as mentioned in the death certificate. It is true that the applicant is residing at Vadodara and the other person who are entitled to receive the share from the deceased property namely, Mr. Nareshbhai Chhotalal Bhatt is residing at Ahmedabad and another one Mr. Chandrakant C. Bhatt residing at Bombay. As per the property of the deceased as shown in the application in para 2(1) to 2(10) is in respect of the movable property vide the property as shown in para 2(11) is a immovable property situated at Ahmedabad. As per the provision U/s.371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, it is clear that the Court within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of the death may grant a certificate under this Part. As per the death certificate issued by the Karnavati Hospital, it is amply clear that the deceased was residing at the time of her death at Ahmedabad at the address as mentioned in the death certificate itself. Therefore, the objection as raised on behalf of the non-applicant on the point of jurisdiction is without substance and meritless. Hence, the same is required to be rejected. It is also contended on behalf of the non-applicant that as per the provision under Order 6 Rule (15) and Order 6 Rule (15) sub-clause (4) and Order 1 Rule (9) as well as Order 13 Rule (1) the applicant has not observed the procedure laid down therein is also not of much importance as the above provision is not applicable to the procedure for obtaining the succession certificate. As per the Section 372 the application for obtaining succession certificate, the applicant has to set forth the particulars as mentioned in the provision itself. Looking to the particular set forth by the applicant in the application at Exh.1, itself is suffice to the requirement. Therefore also the petition moved by the opponent is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is in this light of discussion, I decide the issue No.1 in Negative."
4 In the above view of the matter, having heard the learned advocates for the petitioners, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Court below in rejecting the application of the petitioners raising preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction, is illegal or unlawful or contrary to the provision of Sections 371 and 372 of the Act, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is summarily rejected with no order as to costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top