1. The learned Judge is clearly right. It is not necessary to decide whether by the operation of Section 150 of the Civil Procedure Code, the jurisdiction to receive an inventory has been conferred on the District Court of Ramnad. Having regard to the saving clause in the beginning of the section, the language of Section 98 of the Probate and Administration Act is clear and imposes on the grantee the duty of furnishing the inventory to the Court which issued the Probate. Section 76 also shows that the undertaking is given to the Court which granted the Probate. u/s 56 of the Probate and Administration Act, the Madura District Court had jurisdiction to grant the Probate. That jurisdiction cannot be said to have been taken away, because the properties dealt with in the Probate are within the jurisdiction of another Court by reason of the bifurcation of the district.
2. We dismiss the appeal with costs.
Subramaniyan Chetty v. S.r.m. Ramaswami Chetty Alias Chinniah Chetty
Subramaniyan Chetty v. S.r.m. Ramaswami Chetty Alias Chinniah Chetty
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
| 09-04-1915
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE SESHAGIRI AIYAR, J
- HON'BLE JUSTICE KUMARASWAMI SASTRI, J
Eq Citations
- 31 IND. CAS. 499
- AIR 1916 MAD 908 (2)
- LQ/MadHC/1915/194
Head Note
Probate and Inheritance — Probate and Administration Act, 1882 — Ss. 98 and 56 — Jurisdiction to receive inventory — Splitting of district — Jurisdiction of District Court of Madura to grant probate not taken away by bifurcation of district — Grantee of probate directed to furnish inventory to Madura District Court — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 150
