Skip to content


Subramaniyan Chetty Vs. S.R.M. Ramaswami Chetty Alias Chinniah Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad908(2); 31Ind.Cas.499
AppellantSubramaniyan Chetty
RespondentS.R.M. Ramaswami Chetty Alias Chinniah Chetty
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 150 - probate and administration act (v of 1881), sections 56, 76, 98--probate granted--inventory, furnishing of--property transferred by bifurcation of district to another district--jurisdiction--court granting probate, if can demand inventory. - .....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. under section 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.....
Judgment:

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. Under Section 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.


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