Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 9
Succ. Court 32/25
DHARAMWATI Vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
26.07.2025
Present : Ld. Counsel for petitioner alongwith petitioner.
Arguments heard on consideration. A query was raised to Ld. Counsel for
petitioner pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present
petition.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petition is maintainable before
this court as the respondents no. 2 / MCD is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
this court.
Perusal of the record reveals that the deceased Sh. Ratti was residing at
Palwal, Haryana and the documents filed alongwith the present petition show that the
deceased was a resident of Palwal, Haryana.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for petitioner seeks a pass over to address further
arguments.
At request, be passed over for 12.00 Noon.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
26.07.2025
At 12.01 PM
Present : None.
None has appeared for petitioner.
-- 1 of 4 --
Be awaited. Put up at 02.00 PM.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
26.07.2025
At 02.05 PM
Present : Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
1. Ld counsel for petitioner has submitted that since the
respondent no.2 i.e MCD is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petition is
maintainable before this Court.
2. However, the attention of Ld. counsel for petitioner was
brought to Section 371 of Indian Succession Act, 1925.
3. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the petition
for issuance of Succession Certificate has to be filed within the jurisdiction of the Court
whereby the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death.
4. Perusal of the application alongwith the accompanying
documents including death certificate, office ID Card issued by respondent no.2 / MCD
and Aadhaar Card of the deceased shows that the deceased was ordinarily residing at
District, Palwal, Haryana. Even otherwise, Ld counsel for petitioner has admitted that
deceased was ordinary resident of District Palwal, Haryana and the same is also evident
from the documents accompanying the petition.
5. Section 371 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides the
following :-
-- 2 of 4 --
“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”
6. Therefore, a bare perusal of Section 371 of the Act shows that a
petition for issuance of succession certificate could only lie before the district where the
deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his or her death. It is also trite that only when
the deceased had no fixed place of residence, the Court/district where any part of her
property is situated, may grant succession certificate in respect of the debts and
securities of the deceased.
7. It is noticeable that it is not the case of the petitioner that the
deceased Sh. Ratti @ Rati Ram did not have any fixed place of residence and there is no
averment to such effect in the entire petition. Furthermore, there is no document on
record which shows that deceased was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this
court. In the case of
Rameshwari Devi Vs. Raj Bali Shah, [AIR 1983 All. 68], it was
inter-
alia held that in the ordinary circumstances, the Court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the deceased was ordinarily residing at the time of his death will have
jurisdiction to grant succession certificate. The view of this court is also supported with
the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
P.J.Pothen Vs. Sanghamitra
(CGHS) Society (2014 SCC Online-Del 6511). Therefore, it is trite that merely because
respondent no.2 / MCD is situated within the jurisdiction of this court, this court would
not be conferred with the jurisdiction to grant succession certificate.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that this court does not have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the deceased was not residing
within the jurisdiction of this Court i.e. Central District, Delhi.
-- 3 of 4 --
9. In view of the same, since this court does not have the
territorial jurisdiction to deal with the instant petition, let the petition along with
documents be returned to the petitioner in terms of Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil
Procedure, for presentment before the appropriate court exercising territorial
jurisdiction, after completion of necessary formalities as required under the law.
10. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
26.07.2025
-- 4 of 4 --