# Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi v. Viraganand Chela of Sri Sita Ram Das Onkar Nath & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 592
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-05-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 169 of 2019
- **Bench:** J.J.Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avadh-ram-shukla-chela-of-late-nirmal-kumar-panigrahi-v-viraganand-chela-of-sri-47480
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Indian Succession Act, 1925Section 372, 384 & 388-challenge tosuccession certificate-certificate granted
in favour of first respondent who entitles
to receive a sum of Rs. 42,07,656.82 that
was
property
of
deceased-appellant
contests the claim of first respondent in
appeal u/s 384 of the Act-the Act is a self
contained Code-succession certificate, its
grant, refusal or
revocation, are all
remedies spelt out by the Act-Section 388
of the Act is not governed by the general
scheme
of
division
of
original
and
appellate jurisdiction under the Code of
Civil Procedure-Part-X generally confers
original jurisdiction on the District Judge
u/s 371 of the Act and postulates an
appeal to the High Court u/s 384 of the
Act-Section 388 of the Act carves out an
exception,
empowering
the
State
Government to invest original jurisdiction
of the District Judge to grant a succession
certificate with a Court of a grade inferior
to the District Judge, who would then
exercise functions of a District Judge-It is
explicit that wherever the jurisdiction of
the District Judge under Part-X is invested
by the State Government in a Court
inferior to the District Judge, the appeal
envisaged under section 384(1) of the Act
would lie to the District Judge and not the
High Court-Thus, the appeal does not lie
to this Court and the forum of appeal is
not governed by the value of the subject
matter of succession, or the valuation of
the succession petition-Appeal is not
cognizable by this Court, but by the
District Judge.(Para 1 to 21)

The appeal is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appellate Court has also dismissed the
appeal on the ground that 50% of amount
of fine as directed has not been deposited,
without affording any opportunity to the
appellant to submit arguments on the merits
of the appeal, hence the impugned order is
arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel also
submitted that revisionist(accused) is ready
and willing to deposit 50% of the amount
of fine as directed by the Appellate Court
vide order dated 12.05.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 submitted that revisionist(accused) was
enlarged on bail subject to condition that he
will deposit 50% of the amount of fine within
a month but after being set at liberty instead of
depositing fine while enjoying liberty he
moved an application for modification of the
aforesaid order just to linger the matter. This
application was also rejected by the Appellate
Court on 19.07.2021 but even then the
revisionist(accused)
has
not
made
any
compliance of the order dated 12.05.2021 and
misused his bail. Learned counsel further
contended that as revisionist(accused) is not in
jail, his prayer for bail cannot be considered..

6. It is undisputed that vide order dated
12.05.2021 revisionist(accused) was admitted
to bail subject to condition that he will deposit
50% of the amount of fine within a month.
After getting released the revisionist(applicant)
moved an application before the Appellate
Court to modify the aforesaid order which was
rejected. It is also clear from the perusal of the
impugned order that the Appellate Court has
dismissed the appeal simply on the ground that
accused/appellant has failed to comply the
order dated 12.05.2021 and to deposit amount
of fine as directed. The appeal has not been
heard and decided on merits. The condition of
depositing 50% of the amount of fine was
imposed in bail during appeal, so the appeal
itself cannot be dismissed on this ground. At
the most, Appellate Court can do was to
cancel his bail but the learned Appellate Court
has dismissed the appeal on this ground. So,
the impugned order dismissing the appeal
suffers from manifest illegality and cannot be
sustained. The revision is liable to be allowed.

7. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the revisionist that he is
ready to deposit 50% of the amount of fine it is
directed that if within 15 days from today the
revisionist (accused) appears before the
Appellate Court and shows his willingness to
deposit the amount in pursuance of the order
dated 12.05.2021 the Appellate Court will
permit him to deposit the amount of fine.
Failing which, the Appellate Court may
consider for cancellation of his bail during the
pendency of the appeal.

8. The Criminal Revision is allowed and
order dated 27.10.2021 is set aside. The
Appellate Court shall restore the appeal to its
original
number
and
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties will
decide the criminal appeal in accordance with
law.
----------
(2022)01ILR A592
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 169 of 2019

Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal
Kumar Panigrahi ...Appellant
Versus

Viraganand Chela of Sri Sita Ram Das
Onkar Nath & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
1 All. Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi Vs. Viraganand Chela of Sri
Sita Ram Das Onkar Nath & Anr.
593
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Jyostana
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jai Prakash Singh, Mayank Pathak

A. Civil Law -Indian Succession Act, 1925Section 372, 384 & 388-challenge tosuccession certificate-certificate granted
in favour of first respondent who entitles
to receive a sum of Rs. 42,07,656.82 that
was
property
of
deceased-appellant
contests the claim of first respondent in
appeal u/s 384 of the Act-the Act is a self
contained Code-succession certificate, its
grant, refusal or
revocation, are all
remedies spelt out by the Act-Section 388
of the Act is not governed by the general
scheme
of
division
of
original
and
appellate jurisdiction under the Code of
Civil Procedure-Part-X generally confers
original jurisdiction on the District Judge
u/s 371 of the Act and postulates an
appeal to the High Court u/s 384 of the
Act-Section 388 of the Act carves out an
exception,
empowering
the
State
Government to invest original jurisdiction
of the District Judge to grant a succession
certificate with a Court of a grade inferior
to the District Judge, who would then
exercise functions of a District Judge-It is
explicit that wherever the jurisdiction of
the District Judge under Part-X is invested
by the State Government in a Court
inferior to the District Judge, the appeal
envisaged under section 384(1) of the Act
would lie to the District Judge and not the
High Court-Thus, the appeal does not lie
to this Court and the forum of appeal is
not governed by the value of the subject
matter of succession, or the valuation of
the succession petition-Appeal is not
cognizable by this Court, but by the
District Judge.(Para 1 to 21)

The appeal is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prem Chand Vs Sunil Kumar & ors. (1990)
AWC 593 All

2. Dy. Inspector General, Group Centre, C.R.P.F.
Vs Smt Rakesh Devi & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1.
 Heard
Mr.
Rakesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant and Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mayank
Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the first respondent.

2. A succession certificate has been
granted in favour of respondent no. 1 by the
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)/
FTC,
Faizabad under Section 372 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act').
The
succession
certificate
aforesaid,
granted vide order dated 18.3.2019, entitles
the first respondent to receive a sum of Rs.
42,07,656.82 that was property of the
deceased Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi. The
appellant, who contests the claim of the
first respondent to the grant of succession,
has preferred this appeal under Section 384
of the Act.

3. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Mayank Pathak,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
first respondent to the effect that this appeal
is not cognizable by this Court, but by the
learned District Judge, in view of the
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 388 of
the Act.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant,
on the other hand, submits that the
valuation of the succession petition under
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 372 of the Act is Rs. 42,07,656.82.
He
submits,
on
the
strength
of
a
Notification dated 05.02.2016 (for short,
'the Notification'), issued by this Court
under sub-section (1)(b) of Section 21 of
the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts
Act, 1887 as amended by the U.P. Civil
Laws Amendment Act, 2015, that an
appeal from a decree or order not only in an
original suit but in any proceeding, where
the decree or order was made before or
after the publication of the Notification and
the value of the suit does not exceed Rs. 25
lacs, would lie to the District Judge. He
submits that the consequence of this
notification is that in all matters, where the
value of the original suit or other
proceedings decided by a Court inferior to
that of the District Judge, is above Rs. 25
lacs, the appeal would lie to the High
Court. It is, therefore, urged that the present
succession petition and the proceedings
arising therefrom, even if not a suit, falls
within the definition of 'proceedings',
where the decree or order is made and its
valuation exceeds Rs. 25 lacs. As such, by
dint of Section 21(1)(b) of the Bengal,
Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 as
amended by the U.P. Act No. 14 of 2015
and the Notification of this Court dated
05.02.2016, the order impugned passed by
the learned Civil Judge is appealable to this
Court and not the District Judge.

5.

Succession
certificates
are
governed by Part X of the Act and Sections
371 and 372 of the Act provide:

"371. Court having jurisdiction
to grant certificate.--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 grant a
certificate under this Part.

372. Application for certificate.-
-(1) Application for such a certificate shall
be made to the District Judge by a petition
signed and verified by or on behalf of the
applicant in the manner prescribed by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the
signing and verification of a plaint by or on
behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the
following particulars, namely:--

(a) the time of the death of the
deceased;

(b) the ordinary residence of the
deceased at the time of his death and, if
such residence was not within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to
whom the application is made, then the
property of the deceased within those
limits;

(c) the family or other near
relatives
of
the
deceased
and
their
respective residences;

(d) the right in which the
petitioner claims;

(e)
the
absence
of
any
impediment under Section 370 or under
any other provision of this Act or any other
enactment, to the grant of the certificate or
to the validity thereof if it were granted;
and

(f) the debts and securities in
respect of which the certificate is applied
for.

(2) If the petition contains any
averment which the person verifying it
knows or believes to be false, or does not
1 All. Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi Vs. Viraganand Chela of Sri
Sita Ram Das Onkar Nath & Anr.
595
believe to be true, that person shall be
deemed to have committed an offence
under Section 198 of the Indian Penal
Code.

(3)
Application
for
such
a
certificate may be made in respect of any
debt or debts due to the deceased creditor
or in respect of portions thereof."

6. Section 384 of the Act, which is
about an appeal from orders granting
succession,
refusing
or
revoking
a
certificate, provides:

"384. Appeal.--(1) Subject to the
other provisions of this Part, an appeal shall
lie to the High Court from an order of a
District
Judge
granting,
refusing
or
revoking a certificate under this Part, and
the High Court may, if it thinks fit, by its
order on the appeal, declare the person to
whom the certificate should be granted and
direct the District Judge, on application
being
made
therefor,
to
grant
it
accordingly,
in
supersession
of
the
certificate, if any, already granted.

(2) An appeal under sub-section
(1) must be preferred within the time
allowed for an appeal under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

(3) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (1) and to the provisions as to
reference to and revision by the High Court
and as to review of judgment of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied by Section
141 of that Code, an order of a District
Judge under this Part shall be final."

7. A conjoint reading of Sections 371,
372 and 384 of the Act would show that the
original jurisdiction to entertain and decide
a petition for the grant of a succession
certificate has been conferred by the Act
upon the District Judge, within whose
jurisdiction, the deceased ordinarily resided
at the time of his death, and if he has no
determined place of residence, the District
Judge, within whose jurisdiction, any part
of his property, may be found.

8. The order of the District Judge
granting, refusing or revoking a succession
certificate is appealable to this Court under
the Act. Section 388 of the Act, however,
empowers
the
State
Government
by
Notification in the Official Gazette to
invest any Court, inferior in grade, to a
District Judge with power to exercise the
functions of a District Judge under Part X.
Section 388 of the Act reads:

"388. Investiture of inferior
Courts with jurisdiction of District
Court for purpose of this Act.--(1) The
State Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, invest any Court
inferior in grade to a District Judge with
power to exercise the functions of a District
Judge under this Part.

(2) Any inferior Court so invested
shall, within the local limits of its
jurisdiction, have concurrent jurisdiction
with the District Judge in the exercise of all
the powers conferred by this Part upon the
District Judge, and the provisions of this
Part relating to the District Judge shall
apply to such an inferior Court as if it were
a District Judge:

Provided that an appeal from any
such order of an inferior Court as is
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 384
shall lie to the District Judge, and not to the
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
High Court, and that the District Judge
may, if he thinks fit, by his order on the
appeal, make any such declaration and
direction as that sub-section authorises the
High Court to make by its order on an
appeal from an order of a District Judge.

(3) An order of a District Judge
on an appeal from an order of an inferior
Court under the last foregoing sub-section
shall, subject to the provisions as to
reference to and revision by the High Court
and as to review of judgment of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied by
Section 141 of that Code, be final.

(4) The District Judge may
withdraw any proceedings under this Part
from an inferior Court, and may either
dispose of them or transfer them to another
such Court established within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of the District
Judge and having authority to dispose of
the proceedings.

(5) A notification under subsection (1) may specify any inferior Court
specially or any class of such Courts in any
local area.

(6) Any Civil Court which for
any of the purposes of any enactment is
subordinate to, or subject to the control of,
a District Judge shall, for the purposes of
this section, be deemed to be a Court
inferior in grade to a District Judge."

9. The State Government, in exercise
of powers under sub-section (1) of Section
388 of the Act, have issued a notification
investing all Civil Judges in the State
(which would now bear reference to the
Civil Judge of the Senior Division) with
power to exercise the functions of the
District Judge under Part X of the Act.

10.

The
relevant
Notification
published in the U.P. Gazette, dated March
19, 1955 reads:

"Judicial
Deptt.
no.
4516(i)/VII-900(8)-53, dated March 11,
1955] 33 [Published in the U.P. Gazette,
dated March 19, 1955, Part I, p. 341

In supersession of all previous
notifications on the subject, and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 388 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 (Act XXXIX of 1925), the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to
invest all Civil Judges in the State with
power to exercise the functions of a District
Judge under Part X of the said Act, within
the
local
limits
of
their
respective
jurisdiction as Civil Judge."

11. There is another notification on
the subject also issued on March 19, 1955.
It reads:

"Judicial
Deptt.no.4516(iv)/VII-900(8)-53,
dated
March 11, 1955] 36 [Published in the
U.P. Gazette, dated March 19, 1955, Part
I, p. 342

In supersession of all previous
notifications on the subject, and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 (Act XXXIX of 1925), the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh is pleased to invest all
Munsifs in the State with power to exercise
the functions of a District Judge under Part
X of the said Act, within the local and
pecuniary
limits
of
their
respective
jurisdiction as Munsifs."

12. By the later Notification, powers
of the District Judge under Part X of the
1 All. Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi Vs. Viraganand Chela of Sri
Sita Ram Das Onkar Nath & Anr.
597
Act have been invested by the State
Government with all Munsifs in the State
within the local and pecuniary limits of
their respective jurisdictions. It must be
remarked here that Munsifs have since long
been re-designated as Civil Judges of the
Junior Division and any reference to a
Munsif would now bear reference to Civil
Judges of the Junior Division.

13. The Notification issued by the
High Court on 5th February, 2016,
whereon the learned Counsel for the
appellant Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
heavily places reliance, reads:

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD

Notification No. 35/IVg-27, Dated:
Allahabad: 05.02.2016

In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 1(b) of Section 21 of the
Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act,
1887 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh
Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (U.P.
Act No. 14 of 2015), the High Court is
pleased to direct that an appeal from a
decree or order of a Civil Judge where the
value of the Original suit in which, or in
any proceeding arising out of which the
decree or order was or is made whether
instituted or commenced before or after the
date of publication of this notification in
Official Gazette did not or does not exceed
twenty five lakhs rupees for purposes of
filing appeals shall lie to the District
Judges.

By order of the Court,

(Sheo Kumar Singh-I)

Registrar General

No. 2289 /IVg-27 Allahabad
Dated 05.02.2016"

14. The thrust of the submission of
Mr. Srivastava is that the Forum of appeal,
after amendment of sub-section (1) of
Section 21 of Bengal, Agra and Assam
Civil Courts Act, 1887, would be this Court
from an order of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) granting a succession certificate,
where the valuation of the petition is Rs. 25
lacs or more. He emphasizes that the
pecuniary limitation on the jurisdiction of
the District Judge to hear appeals from the
decrees or the orders made by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) is limited to the
value where it does not exceed Rs. 25 lacs.
All other decrees and orders would be
appealable to this Court, if the Civil Judge
passes them in suits or proceedings where
the
value
exceeds
Rs.
25
lacs.
It
emphasized that this is not confined to suits
alone, but any other proceedings where the
Civil Judge (Senior Division) passes a
decree or order, whether instituted or
commenced before or after publication of
Notification dated 05.2 2016.

15. This Court must remark that the
submission of learned Counsel for the
appellant is based on a misreading of the
Notification. The clear phraseology of the
Notification shows that it bears reference to
original suits, wherein an order or decree is
made or in any proceedings arising from
the suit where the decree or order is made.
The other part or class of cases bear
reference to proceedings, arising out of
suits and not statutory proceedings under
Special Acts. The Notification has no
application, in the opinion of this Court, to
a petition for succession under the Act
which are statutory proceedings and by no
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
means, a suit. A suit is well-known to be a
proceeding
that
commences
on
the
presentation of a plaint. It is brought to
enforce civil rights of a party, where there
is no remedy provided by Statute or is not
barred by law, expressly or implicitly. A
succession petition, by contrast, is a
statutory proceeding postulated under the
Act, which is a special statute, creating
rights and liabilities, and also providing
remedies. Succession certificate, its grant,
refusal or revocation, are all remedies spelt
out by the Act and by no means suits,
which the Civil Court is entitled to take
cognizance of in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction to try all causes of a civil
nature.

16. Quite apart, the Act is a self
contained Code and Section 388 of the Act
is not governed by the general scheme of
division
of
original
and
appellate
jurisdiction under the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Part-X
generally
confers
original jurisdiction on the District Judge
under Section 371 of the Act and postulates
an appeal to the High Court under Section
384 of the Act. Section 388 of the Act
carves out an exception, empowering the
State
Government
to
invest
original
jurisdiction of the District Judge to grant a
succession certificate with a Court of a
grade inferior to the District Judge, who
would then exercise functions of a District
Judge under Part-X. The proviso to subsection (2) of Section 388 of the Act makes
it explicit that wherever the jurisdiction of
the District Judge under Part-X is invested
by the State Government in a Court inferior
to the District Judge, the appeal envisaged
under sub-section (1) of Section 384 of the
Act would lie to the District Judge and not
the High Court. The emphasis in the
phraseology of the proviso where it says
"and not to the High Court" makes it
pellucid that wherever jurisdiction of the
District Judge is invested in a Court inferior
in grade to the District Judge, the appeal
envisaged under Section 384 (1) of the Act
would lie to the District Judge and not to
this Court. It would be noticed that the
forum of appeal, in case of conferment of
powers of a District Judge on a Court of
inferior jurisdiction, is not subject to any
kind of a clause about valuation of the
succession
petition.
It
is
free
from
valuation.

17. The dichotomy in the forum of
appeal envisaged under Section 21(1)(b) of
the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts
Act, 1887 between the District Judge and
the High Court dependent upon valuation
of the suit or other proceedings arising out
of the suits tried by the Courts inferior to
the Court of the District Judge is foreign to
the scheme of the Act. In this connection,
reference may be made to the decision of a
Division Bench of this Court sitting at
Allahabad in Prem Chand vs. Sunil
Kumar and Others; 1990 AWC 593 All,
where the same question that is involved
here arose. In that case also, an appeal
under Section 384 of the Act had been
instituted before this Court against an order
rejecting an application for revocation of
the succession certificate granted to the
respondents to the appeal and also an order
extending the grant of succession certificate
to some other assets. The preliminary
objection
taken
was
about
the
maintainability of the appeal, saying that
the powers of the District Judge conferred
on the Civil Judge under Section 388(1) of
the Act was without reference to valuation
of the claim vis-a-vis the forum of appeal.

18. The Division Bench upheld the
objection and opined that in a case where
powers under Section 388(1) of the Act to
1 All. Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi Vs. Viraganand Chela of Sri
Sita Ram Das Onkar Nath & Anr.
599
grant or revoke succession certificate are
conferred to a Court inferior to that of a
District Judge, the forum of appeal
envisaged is the District Judge and that is
dehors the valuation of the petition. In
Prem Chand (supra), it was held:

"3. Part X of the Succession Act
deals with matters relating to grant of
succession certificate and contains Sections
370 to 390 in that part. Under Section 372
an application for grant of a Succession
Certificate ordinarily lies before the District
Judge within whose territorial jurisdiction
the deceased ordinarily resided or part of
his property was situate. Section 384 deals
with the forum where the appeal in such
cases
shall
lie.
It
is,
however,
of
significance that the section is prefaced
with the words, 'subject' to other provisions
of this part. Thus, although in the ordinary
circumstances an appeal against order
passed in proceedings in this Chapter shall
lie to the High Court but this is hedged by
the condition that there is no other
provision contrary to this or which may
provide otherwise.

4. Section 388 of the Act,
however, lays down somewhat different
provision, even if not contrary. The
relevant part of the section may be
extracted here as under:

"388(1). The State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
invest any Court inferior in grade to a
District Judge with power to exercise the
functions of a District Judge under this
part.

(2) Any inferior Court so invested
shall, within the local limits of its
jurisdiction, have concurrent jurisdiction
with the District Judge in the exercise of all
the powers conferred by this Part upon the
District Judge, and the provisions of this
Part relating to the District Judge shall
apply to such an inferior Court as if it were
a District Judge:

Provided that an appeal from any
such order of an inferior Court as is
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 384
shall lie to the District Judge, and not to the
High Court, and that the District Judge
may, if he thinks fit, by his order on the
appeal, make any such declaration and
direction as that sub-section authorises the
High Court to make by its order on an
appeal from an order of a District Judge."

Thus
where
powers
of
the
Distinct Judge under this part are conferred
upon an inferior Court by a notification
issued by the State Government, such"
court shall exercise the powers of the
District Judge so far as-Part X of the Act is
concerned. An appeal against its orders
instead of being filed before the High
Court, will lie before the District Judge. In
fact whatever powers the District Judge
enjoys in this part after notification gets
vested in the Civil Judge.

5. It is not disputed here, that a
notification conferring powers of the
District Judge on the Civil Judge has been
issued and the proceedings out of which the
present appeal arises had been disposed of
by that Court in exercise of powers so
conferred.

6. For the appellant, however, it
was submitted that in view of amendment of
Bengal, Area and Assam Civil Courts Act
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1887, in this State an appeal to the High
Court lies in all matters of civil nature where
the valuation of the suit or proceeding was
more than Rs. 20,000/-. Since the valuation
of proceeding in this matter was admittedly
more than Rs. 20,000/- the present appeal
was cognizable by the High Court. This
argument however, overlooks some crucial
words occurring in the relevant provision of
that Act. Chapter III of the 1887 Act deals
with ordinary jurisdiction of the various kind
of Civil Courts established under that Act
While under Section 18 the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge
and the Civil Judge extends to all suits of
civil nature but subject only to the condition
that the suit must be filed in the court of
lowest grade (Section 15, C.P.C) Since
Section 19 of the Act fixes the jurisdiction
of the Court of Munsif at Rs. 5000/- (now
Rs. 10,000/-) all suits or proceedings of a
value more than that will ordinarily lie in the
Court of the Civil Judge or the District
Judge subject to the provision of any other
Act then in force. Sections 20 and 21 then
deal with forum where an appeal will lie
against the order of the District Judge or
Additional District Judge and from the order
of
the
Civil
Judge
or
the
Munsif
respectively. In the case of the former,
appeal will lie to the High Court unless
provided to the contrary in any other
enactment. In the latter case the appeal shall
lie to the District Judge if the valuation of
the suit or proceeding be Rs. 20,000/- or less
and to the High Court in other cases.

7. It is, however, significant to
note that provision of Section 21 is
qualified by the expresssion save as
aforesaid." This means that Section 21 is in
the nature of a corollary to Section 20.

8. Section 20 also is subject to an
exception as would be clear from the
expression "save as otherwise" provided by
enactment for the "time being in force."
Reading Sections 20 and 21 together leads
to the irresistible conclusion that an appeal
of the value of more than Rs. 20,000/-
would lie before the District Judge if there
be in force an enactment which provides
otherwise. These provisions if read in the
light of Section 388(2) proviso make it
abundantly clear that in such cases an
appeal shall lie to the District Judge despite
what is set out in S. 21(1-A) of the Bengal,
Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887.
The view that we are taking substantially
gets support from AIR 1960 Raj 9 Mst.
Bhanwar Bai vs. Balmukund where, while
interpreting Sections 384 and 388 of the
Indian Succession Act the Court held as
under:--

"It clearly follows from the
combined operation of Section 388 and
Section 384 that where an order within the
meaning of Section 384 of the Act has been
passed by a court inferior to that of the
District Judge within the meaning of
subsections (1) and (2) of Section 388 then
an appeal from an order granting, refusing
or revoking a certificate passed by such
Judge shall lie to the District Judge and not
to the High Court. It is true that an inferror
court properly invested with jurisdiction to
decide such cases by the State Government
in accordance with sub-section (1) of
Section 388 has concurrent jurisdiction
with the District Court in so far as the
exercise of all the powers conferred by this
part of the Succession Act is concerned but
this must be read subject to the provision to
sub-section (2) of Section 388, which
clearly provides that an appeal from any
order of an inferior court falling within the
scope of Section 384 of the Act can only lie
to the District Judge and not to the High
Court."
1 All. Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal Kumar Panigrahi Vs. Viraganand Chela of Sri
Sita Ram Das Onkar Nath & Anr.
601

9. In view of what we have said
above, we are of the opinion that there is
substance in the preliminary objection
raised and it must be upheld. The High
Court will, therefore, have no jurisdiction
to entertain the appeal as it ought to have
been filed before the District Judge. In
view of this we direct that the memo of this
appeal be returned to the appellant for
being presented before the competent court
i.e the District Judge, Saharanpur."

19. The question again arose before a
Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad
in Dy. Inspector General, Group Centre,
C.R.P.F. vs. Smt. Rakesh Devi and
others decided on 27.07.2015, where their
Lordships of the Division Bench, noticing
the decision in Prem Chand (supra), held:

"In compliance of the aforesaid
order, office has submitted a report dated
13-05-2015 to the effect that in view of
Section 371 of the Act, the District Judge
has
jurisdiction
to
grant
succession
certificate and First Appeal From Order lies
before this Court and the Civil Judge has
wrongly
entertained
the
case
issued
succession
certificate.
However,
the
District Judge has submitted a report dated
15-04-2015 to the effect that the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad has
jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings
under Section 371 of the Act and an appeal
against such order shall lie to the District
Judge as provided under Section 388 of the
Act. The District Judge in his report has
placed reliance on the Notification No.
4516(i)VII-900(8)-53 dated March 11,
1955 & No. 4516(iv)/VII-900(8)-53 dated
March 11, 1955 investing all Civil Judges
in the State with power to exercise
functions of a District Judge under Part X
of the Act within local limits of the respect
jurisdiction as Civil Judges. A Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Prem
Chand v. Sunil Kumar & others, 1990
A.W.C. 593 has held that in view of the
notification issued by the State Government
in exercise of powers under Section 388 of
the Indian Succession Act investing Civil
Judges with the power to exercise the
functions of a District Judge under Part-X
of the Act, it is the Civil Judge who has the
power to entertain a proceeding and grant
succession certificate and the appeal shall
lie to the District Judge in view of proviso
to Section 388."

20. Thus, there is not an iota of doubt
that once jurisdiction to take cognizance of
and decide a petition for the grant of a
succession certificate is invested by the
State Government in a Court inferior in
grade to the District Judge, by virtue of the
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 388 of
the Act, it is the District Judge alone who is
competent to entertain and decide the
appeal under Section 384(1) of the Act.
The appeal does not lie to this Court and
the forum of appeal is not governed by the
value of the subject matter of succession, or
the valuation of the succession petition.

21. Viewed in this perspective, it is
held that this appeal is not conginzable by
this Court, but by the District Judge. It is,
accordingly, ordered that this appeal be
returned to the appellant for presentation
before
the
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction. Since, an interim order was
granted on 20.09.2019, while entertaining
this appeal, directing parties to maintain
status quo, it is provided that for a period
of four weeks hence, parties shall
maintain status quo.
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. Let the lower court records be
returned to the District Judge, Faizabad,
forthwith.
----------
(2022)01ILR A602
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2021 &
21.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No.278 of 2019

U.O.I. ...Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Prashant Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, Kavita Devi
Verma, Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava

A. Civil Law -Railways Claims Tribunal
Act,1987-Section 23 & 123(c)(2) r/w
Section
124-A-Untoward
accidentcompensation-entitlement-Affidavit
filed
by
claimants/Parents-claimants
shows
that deceased was travelling in train with
ticket and died due to untoward incident
of falling down from running train-Burden
of proof whether deceased was bonafide
passenger was on Railways-Testimony of
AW-1 & aW-2 that unknown person was
runover by the train-Claimants relied for
documentary evidence upon copies of the
Station Superintendent's memo, inquest
report issued by Pradhan, police report
and ration card-But the appellants relied
on the Statutory Investigation Report
carrying
the
DRM's
report
-Such
contradictory testimony cannot be relied
on-No evidence on record that deceased
was crossing the railway track and was
runover by train-Claimants entitled for
compensation-tribunal directed payment
of Rs. 8 lacs with interest at the rate of
9% per annum reckoned from the date of
judgment until realisation within a period
of ninety days-modification of judgement
allowed to the extent that on the sum of
compensation ordered to be paid by the
Tribunal, interest shall be payable at the
rate of 9% per annum after expiry of a
period of ninety days from the date of
judgment passed by the Tribunal till
realizaiton, in the event the appellants
fails to pay the aforesaid amount.(Paras 1
to 25)

The appeal is allowed partly. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572

2. U.O.I. thru G.M., Northern Railway Vs Smt.
Gayatri Devi, FAFO No. 166 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

The Union of India has appealed under
Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal
Act, 19871 from a judgment of the
Tribunal
dated
15.03.2019,
awarding
compensation to the dependents of the
victim of a railway accident.

2. The claimant-respondents Dinesh
Kumar and Smt. Prem Lata instituted a
claim under Section 16 of the Act against
the Union of India, represented by the
General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad seeking compensation for the
death of their son, Laxmikant in a railway
accident on 25.02.2012. It is the claimantrespondents' case that the deceased was
travelling from Satna to Varanasi on
25.02.2012 on board the Tapti Ganga
Express. As the train was moving between
the Meja Road and Unchadih Railway
Stations, the deceased accidentally fell off
the train, sustaining grievous injuries. He
succumbed to those injuries. It is the
claimants' case that the deceased was