R.M.KANTAWALA, C.J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this revision application against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Nanded, dismissing their appeal against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded issuing a succession certificate to the respondent No. 1 in respect of certain amounts lying deposited in the State Bank of Hyderabad. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that his uncle Bhagwan Rao died on January, 27, 1968 in the Hospital at Nanded leaving his will dated January 20, 1968. No probate of this will has been applied for and an application was made for succession certificate to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in respect of amounts lying in the Bank by the respondent No. 2 who is the nephew of the deceased. The petitioners in this case are the heirs of Kishanrao Ghan a brother of the deceased. The trial Court granted a succession certificate in respect of the amount lying in the Bank and in an appeal preferred by the petitioners they were not permitted to contend that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded had no jurisdiction to grant the succession certificate on the plea that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the same. It is against that order passed by the Appellate Court that the present revision application is filed by the petitioners.
(2.) Mr. Agrawal on behalf of the petitioners contended that the respondent No. 1 did not mention specifically in the application for succession certificate the place of ordinary residence of deceased Bhagwan Rao which it was obligatory for him to do and although it was true that before the trial Court no objection as to jurisdiction was taken, still as such objection was patent upon the face of the record the learned District Judge was in error in not permitting such contention to be raised for the first time in appeal. He pointed out that it is clearly admitted in evidence that deceased Bhagwan Rao was an ordinary resident of Jalna or Aurangabad and merely because he died in a Hospital at Nanded the Court at Nanded will have no jurisdiction to issue the succession certificate. Mr. Bhadekar on behalf of the respondent No. 1, in view of the admission given in evidence, has not disputed the fact that the deceased was an ordinary resident of Jalna or Aurangabad.
(3.) The short question that has to be considered in this revision application is whether the Court at Nanded had jurisdiction to issue the succession certificate. Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provides that 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 granted certificate under this part. Further one of the particulars which are required to be mentioned in an application for succession certificate under section 372(1)(b) is the place of ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death. It is not controverted in the present case that when the respondent No. 1 made an application for succession certificate this particular information was not furnished in that deceased was an ordinary resident of Jalna or Aurangabad. If that was so, then the Court at Nanded would have no jurisdiction to issue a succession certificate. The provisions of section 371 above referred to are very clear an if the deceased was not an ordinary resident of Nanded at the time of his death, then naturally the Court at Nanded would have no jurisdiction contended by Mr. Agrawal that under section 388 of the Act powers to issue a succession certificate are not conferred upon the civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, but it is unnecessary for me to go into the that question for the purposes of this application, because on a plain reading of section 371 as the deceased was ordinary resident of Jalna or Aurangabad the Court at Nanded had no jurisdiction to issue the succession certificate.;