Skip to content


Huran Bibi and anr. Vs. Hingan Bibi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All148
AppellantHuran Bibi and anr.
RespondentHingan Bibi
Excerpt:
act no. vii of 1889 (succession certificate act), sections 19 and 26 - munsif invested with functions of district court--appeal--jurisdiction. - .....the certificate. the two sisters who had objected, preferred an appeal to the district court. the district judge transferred the appeal for hearing and decision to the court of the judge of small causes at cawnpore. that court has dismissed the appeal. the applicants have come here in revision, and it is urged that the judge of the court of small causes had no jurisidiction to hear the appeal, which could only be heard and decided by the district judge. of this i think there can be no doubt. the act in itself gives power to two courts, namely, the district court and the high court to take action in such matters. but in section 26 it gives the local government power by notification to invest any court inferior to a district court with the functions of a district court under the act. in.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This is an application in revision which has been made under the following circumstances. One Musammat Hingan Bibi applied under the Succession Certificate Act for a certificate enabling her to recover certain debts due to her deceased husband. She was opposed by two parsons, who are sisters of the deceased. The application was made in the court of the Munsif, which is a court empowered by the Local Government under Section 26, Clause (1) of Act VII of 1889, to deal with such applications. The Munsif after some proceedings decided in favour of the applicant for the certificate. The two sisters who had objected, preferred an appeal to the District Court. The District Judge transferred the appeal for hearing and decision to the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore. That court has dismissed the appeal. The applicants have come here in revision, and it is urged that the Judge of the Court of Small Causes had no jurisidiction to hear the appeal, which could only be heard and decided by the District Judge. Of this I think there can be no doubt. The Act in itself gives power to two Courts, namely, the District Court and the High Court to take action in such matters. But in Section 26 it gives the Local Government power by notification to invest any court inferior to a district court with the functions of a district court under the Act. In those cases, however, provision has been made for an appeal from an order of the inferior court--vide Sub-section (1) of Section 19--to the District Court. The Local Government by notification invested the Munsif with powers under this Act. But neither the Subordinate Judge nor the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been invested with powers under this Act. It is quite clear, therefore, that an appeal from an order of the Munsif would lie only to the District Court, and that none of the other courts subordinate to the District Court have power to hear appeals in such cases. They have no jurisdiction at all under the Act, It is a special Act and the appeal lies only to the District Court and cannot possibly be heard by any such inferior courts. I therefore grant the application and set aside the order of the lower court. I direct that the appeal be heard and tried by the District Judge himself. Costs of this application will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //