The High Court of Jharkhand reaffirms that, under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate vests in the District Judge where the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of death, or where any part of the deceased’s property is located. The Court sets aside the earlier decision dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction and remands the matter, thus upholding established precedent and providing binding authority for similar matters in Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MA/88/2011 of GANGA DAYAL PANDIT Vs SMT ASHA DEVI And ORS |
| CNR | JHHC010138092011 |
| Date of Registration | 25-04-2011 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the settled position under Section 371, Indian Succession Act, 1925 |
| Type of Law | Succession Law / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether the court at the place of the deceased’s ordinary residence at the time of death has jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate under Section 371 of the Succession Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, jurisdiction for granting a succession certificate lies with the District Judge where the deceased ordinarily resided at death, or where the property is located. The dismissal of the application on territorial jurisdiction grounds was found unsustainable where the deceased’s matrimonial home was within the jurisdiction. Prior issuance of a succession certificate with respect to the same debts and securities further reinforced this position. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, husband of Late Chandra Devi, sought a succession certificate regarding various bank deposits and securities. Earlier disputes and a compromise had settled the division of assets. The lower court dismissed the application citing that the deceased had died (and property existed) outside its jurisdiction. The High Court found this unsustainable, relying on Section 371. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in interpreting Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 |
| Follows | The plain language and established legal interpretation of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that district courts at the deceased’s ordinary place of residence or where property is found both have jurisdiction for succession certificates under Section 371.
- Dismissal of a succession application purely on jurisdictional grounds, where such residence is established, is not sustainable.
- Prior grants of succession certificates through the same court lend further weight to jurisdiction.
- Clarifies that matrimonial home can establish “ordinary residence” for jurisdictional purposes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court referenced Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which permits the District Judge at the deceased’s ordinary residence or at the location of property to grant succession certificates.
- Noted that the deceased’s matrimonial home and the residence of the appellant (husband) were in Godda, within the court’s jurisdiction.
- The earlier succession certificate on the same property and parties had already been granted through this court.
- The lower court’s reliance on property/death location outside district was found erroneous in the face of the statutory language and prior factual context.
- Hence, the impugned order was set aside and matter remanded for a decision on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The second application merely sought modification, restricting claim to 60% of Chandra Devi’s deposits according to previous compromise.
- The court at Godda, as the matrimonial home and residence, had territorial jurisdiction under Section 371.
- Prior adjudication and grant of succession certificate by Godda court supported this view.
- The lower court misapplied jurisdictional principles under the Indian Succession Act.
Respondent:
- No contest by the main contesting respondent in the High Court.
- Counsel for Respondent No.4 previously appeared but was absent on the day of final hearing.
Factual Background
The appellant, Ganga Dayal Pandit, sought a succession certificate regarding the estates (bank deposits and securities) of his late wife, Chandra Devi, who was a teacher. The property in question included multiple bank accounts and securities in Bihar and Jharkhand. Earlier, a succession certificate was granted in favour of the appellant, followed by a compromise allocating 60% of the assets to him and 40% to the proforma respondent. The trial court dismissed the fresh application on territorial jurisdiction grounds, stating Chandra Devi died and property was located in Munger (Bihar), not Godda (Jharkhand). The High Court was approached for redress under Section 384 of the Succession Act.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was analysed and quoted in the judgment.
- The Court interpreted that jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate lies either where the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of death or where any part of the property is found.
- No restrictive or expansive interpretation beyond the plain wording was applied; the section was followed in its clear form.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural guidelines or directions were issued in this judgment.
- The case was remanded for a fresh decision after setting aside the impugned order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established law interpreting Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.