(Prayer: Civil Petition No.197/2013 filed under Sec.24 of CPC, praying this Honble Court to transfer OS No.4007/2013 (earlier P & SC.No.157/2013) filed by the 1st respondent in present CP and plaintiff in P & SC.No.157/2013 & OS No.4007/2013 pending on the file of the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore,on to its file to be tried along with Probate CP No.14/2013 pending before this Honble Court. Civil Petition No.222/2013 filed under Sec.24 of CPC, praying this Honble Court to transfer the Probate C.P. No.14/2013 filed before the Honble High Court of Karnataka to the file f the XVth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-3), Bangalore along with O.S. No.4007/2013 (P &Sc. No.157/2013) for adjudication.)

C.A.V. Order:

1. This petition is filed under Section 24 CPC by Sri D.N.Ramamurthy seeking transfer of P & SC No.157/2013 filed by the 1st respondent which is now re-numbered as O.S.No.4007/2013. The said proceeding is pending on the file of the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The transfer of the said case is sought, so that the same is tried along with Probate C.P.No.14/2013 filed by the petitioner before this Court.

2. Petitioner - Mr. D.N.Ramamurthy claims to be the sole executor of the Will dated 08.05.2012 allegedly executed by late Smt. Shankuntala Devi. He also claims that he is the Trustee of the Trust established by late Shankuntala Devi called as Shakuntala Devi Educational Foundation Public Trust. He has initiated proceedings under Section 276 read with Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the Act) before this Court in Probate C.P.No.14/2013 seeking grant of probate of the Will dated 08.05.2012 with Codicil dated 17.05.2012 executed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi in his favour and in his name.

3. He has contended that the Will has been duly registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Chamarajpet, on 09.05.2012 and the Codicil has been executed on 17.05.2012 incorporating certain movable properties (bank account) which could not be incorporated in the Will. He has further stated that Smt.Shakuntala Devi who was a renowned mathematician and was well known as a Human Computer died at Bangalore on 21.04.2013 leaving behind several properties in Bangalore, Mumbai, New York and London.

4. The 1st respondent - Anupama Banerjee is the daughter of late Shakuntala Devi. She has instituted proceedings in P & SC No.157/2013 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore seeking grant of Letters of Administration under Part VII & IX of the Act, to act and represent late Smt. Shakuntala Devi as her legal representative and to secure the transfer and distribution of various assets listed in the schedule.

5. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raghavan appearing for the petitioner in C.P.No.197/2013 that the issues involved in both the proceedings are similar. Parties involved in both the proceedings are one and the same. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and parallel proceedings in two different courts, one in the High Court and the other in the City Civil Court, it would be expedient if O.S.No.4007/2013 (P & SC No.157/2013) is transferred to the file of this Court for comprehensive adjudication of the issues involved in both the cases.

6. The 1st respondent herein has filed C.P.No.222/2013 under Section 24 CPC praying for transfer of the proceedings in Probate C.P.No.14/2013 instituted before this Court by D.N.Ramamurthy. She has contended that Shakuntala Devi died on 21.04.2013 at Bangalore intestate. As no other person other than the petitioner/daughter of the deceased has any right or claim over the estate left behind by Smt. Shakuntala Devi, she has filed a petition in P & SC No.157/2013 which is re-numbered as O.S.No.4007/2013 claiming administration of the properties and credit as her sole heir. She has impleaded D.N.Ramamurthy and other Trustees and has filed applications seeking protection of the estate of her mother and the said application has been heard by the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and the matter is posted to 21.10.2013 for orders on the application seeking grant of temporary injunction. It is contented by Mr. Arun, learned Counsel for Crest Law Associates that the proceedings for grant of probate under the Act, has to be treated and equated to a proceeding in the suit and the same was required to be initiated before the District Judge concerned which is to be conducted according to the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. It is urged that as per Section 15 of CPC, every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try. Hence the present proceedings instituted before this Court seeking probate ought to have been instituted before the Trial Court. Hence, probate proceedings in C.P.No.14/2013 are sought for being transferred to the file of XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, to be adjudicated along with O.S.No.4007/2013.

8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.G.Raghavan appearing for the petitioner in C.P.No.197/2013 and Mr. Arun for Crest Law Partners.

9. Mr. Raghavan invites the attention of the Court to Section 273 of the Act, to contend that probates and letters of administration granted by a High Court shall unless otherwise directed by the grant, have like effect throughout the Country, whereas, probate granted by the District Judge will have such effect only if the value of the property and estate situated beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner has rightly chosen this Court for instituting the probate proceedings as the deceased has left behind properties not only in Bangalore, but also in Mumbai, New York and London.

10. Mr. Arun, Counsel for the respondent who also appears for the petitioner in the connected C.P.No.222/2013 submits that as per Section 15 CPC, a suit has to be instituted in the lowest court. Therefore, the proceedings ought to have been instituted before the District Judge and not before this Court. He urges that even where this Court has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the probate proceedings, as held in the case of Anthony DA Costa Vs Mrs. Marietta Pinto Hayes in T.O.S.No.4/1998 disposed of on 18.06.2001, it is appropriate that the probate proceedings instituted by Ramamurthy are transferred to the District Judge who is dealing with the case instituted by the 1st respondent - Anupama Banerjee seeking letters of administration.

11. On careful perusal of the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for both parties, I find that though as per Section 300 of the Act, the High Court has got concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge to exercise all the powers conferred upon the District Judge, as per Section 273, probate or letters of administration granted by the High Court shall have the effect over all the properties and estate, movable or immovable of the deceased, throughout the State and also beyond the State, in which the same is granted and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased, and all persons holding property which belongs to him and shall afford full indemnity to all debtors, paying their debts and all persons delivering up such property to the person to whom such probate or letters of administration have been granted. But, this is not the effect, if the probate is granted by the District Judge because of proviso (b) to Section 273, which makes it clear that the probate issued by the District Judge will be effective, only if the value of the property and estate affected beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs.10,000/- and the Judge concerned certifies so.

12. Therefore, it is apparent from the provisions under Section 273 of the Act, that petitioner - Ramamurthy who claims to be the executor of the Will, has rightly instituted the probate proceedings before this Court in C.P.No.14/2013. It cannot be said that he ought to have instituted these proceedings before the District Judge in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, because admittedly deceased Smt. Shakunthala Devi has left behind properties not only in Bangalore, but also at Mumbai, New York and London. The probate to be granted by the District Judge will not have effect over the estate of the deceased situated in Mumbai if the same is granted by the District Judge and if the value of the estate is more than Rs.10,000/-.

13. In the decision of this Court dated 18.06.2001 in T.O.S.No.4/1998 referred to supra, the Court was dealing with the dispute where the properties of the deceased were situated within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Under such circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that as the City Civil Court, Bangalore, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for grant of probate and deal with the matter effectively and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, it was not appropriate to entertain the petition filed before the High Court. Hence, the said judgment relied on by the Counsel for the respondent, has no application to the facts of the present case.

14. Even in the judgment in the case of T.J.GEORGE VS MRS. LUCY KOCHUVAREED - AIR 1963 KERALA 188, the proposition laid down is, that the District Court does not loose its jurisdiction to grant a probate merely because properties worth more than Rs.10,000/- belonging to the estate of the deceased were situated outside the State in which it exercises jurisdiction. In such a case, the District Court is held to have jurisdiction to grant a probate effective only with respect to properties inside the State.

15. Though it is well established that the judgment of the Court of probate is a judgment in rem, the limit of Rs.10,000/- as to the value of the property situated in another State with regard to the effectiveness of the probate granted by the Court of District Judge and the unlimited effect of the probate issued by the High Court as contained under Section 273 of the Act, makes it legally appropriate and plausible for the petitioner to approach this Court, when such advantage is not there for him if he goes to the District Court.

16. Although learned Counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on Section 228 of the Act, submits that even if the probate is issued by the District Judge in respect of the properties situated outside the State having value more than Rs.10,000/-, what all is required for him is to produce a properly authenticated copy of the Will before that Court and obtain letters of administration, the fact that the petitioner will be driven to the ordeal of obtaining letters of administration by producing the authenticated copy of the Will and by following the required procedure is undeniable. Even otherwise, the words may be granted, used in Section 228 may expose the petitioner herein to certain uncertainties.

17. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raghavan has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of SMT. KANTA VS STATE & ANOTHER - AIR 1985 DELHI 453 and on the case of RAM LAL VS CHANAN DASS AND OTHER - AIR 1938 LAHORE 349, to support his contention and to drive home the point that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, petitioner has advisedly approached this Court keeping in mind the provisions of Section 273 of the Act and that the real object of Section 228 is to dispense with the production of the original Will in some other Court and that Section 228 is merely an enabling Section, therefore, the same shall not be a ground to force the petitioner to approach the District Judge.

18. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of RUKN-UL-MULK S. ABDUL WAJID & OTHERS VS MRS. GAJAMBAL RAMALINGAM & OTHERS - AIR (37) 1950 MYSORE 57 and also in the matter of TADIMALLA SUBBA RAO - AIR 1972 MYSORE 293. As rightly contended by Mr. Raghavan, these decisions cannot be made use of by the respondent to compel the petitioner to institute the probate proceedings only before the District Judge disregarding efficacy and effectiveness that is attached to the probate issued by the District Judge as compared to the one issued by this Court.

19. Therefore, on consideration of the entire materials on record, I am of the considered view that C.P.No.222/2013 filed by Smt. Anupama Banerjee for transferring Probate C.P.No.14/2013 filed before this Court to the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, deserves to be dismissed.

20. In so far as the prayer for transfer of P & SC No.157/2013 re-numbered as O.S.No.4007/2013 from the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, to this Court, as prayed for by the executor of the Will - Mr. Ramamurthy, it is clear that both these proceedings cannot go on before different courts because the controversy can only be resolved only after examining the question regarding due execution of the alleged Will by deceased Smt. Shakunthala Devi. The daughter of the deceased who has sought for letters of administration in P & SC No.157/2013 cannot succeed in getting the letters of administration, if the executor of the Will - Ramamurhty establishes that deceased Shakunthala Devi has indeed executed a valid Will bequeathing her properties for the purpose stated therein and excluding her daughter from succeeding to the same. Hence, it is appropriate that this Court which is seized of the matter regarding the probate proceedings instituted by the Executor, hears and disposes of the proceedings instituted by the daughter Anupama Banerjee seeking grant of letters of administration. Two parallel proceedings before different forums for adjudicating the same controversy will result in prejudice to the parties apart from introducing confusion, cachos and inconsistency. Hence, I am of the considered view that the proceeding in P & SC No.157/2013 re-numbered as O.S.No.4007/2013 filed by the 1st respondent deserves to be transferred to this Court to be tried along with Probate C.P.No.14/2013 instituted by the petitioner herein.

21. In the result, C.P.No.222/2013 is dismissed. C.P.No.197/2013 is allowed. P & SC No.157/2013 re-numbered as O.S.No.4007/2013 filed by the 1st respondent pending on the file of XV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is withdrawn and transferred to this Court, to be tried along with Probate C.P.No.14/2013 instituted by the petitioner herein.

22. At this stage, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the City Civil Judge has already heard both parties on the application filed seeking an order of injunction and the matter is posted for orders on 21.10.2013 and that pronouncement of the order is delayed only because of the pendency of the civil petitions. As the learned District Judge has already heard the interlocutory application and has posted the matter for orders, there shall be no impediment to pass orders on the said application. This order directing withdrawal and transfer of proceedings in P & SC No.157/2013 re- numbered as O.S.No.4007/2013, shall be effective only after passing of the said order on the application. The learned City Civil Judge shall make all endeavours to pass orders on the interlocutory application, as expeditiously as possible and thereafter the papers of the case shall be transferred to this Court to be heard along with Probate C.P.No.14/2013.