PARWATI DEVI AND ORS vs SURJI DEVI AND ORS
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
No. 5189 of 2014
W.P. (C)
1. Parwati Devi, wife of Late Baleshwar Dhobi
2. Sarita Kumari (Minor)
3. Sangita Kumari (Minor)
Both are Minor daughters of Late Baleshwar Dhobi
4. Anand Rajak @ Anand Kumar Rajak (Minor)
Son of Late Baleshwar Dhobi
All are residents of Village- Bhullo, P.O. & P.S. Sikandra, District- Jamui
(Bihar), at present all residents of Bhagabandh, Tinpatia, P.O.
Bhagabandh, P.S. Putki, District- Dhanbad (Minor being represented by
their natural guardian mother namely Parwati Devi)
… Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Surji Devi, W/o Late Soharai Dhobi (Mother of Late Baleshwar Dhobi)
2. Gita Devi, W/o Shri Mahadeo Rajak (Daughter of Late Baleshwar Dhobi)
3. Rina Devi, W/o Shri Neharu Rajak (Daughter of Late Baleshwar Dhobi)
4(i). Asha Devi, W/o Dullu Rajak, R/o Rajak Tola, Chalkari, Jaridih Bazar,
P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
4(ii). Savitri Devi, W/o Vinod Rajak, R/o Baliyari, P.O. Jhari, P.S. Amas,
District- Gaya, Bihar
4(iii). Sumitra Devi, W/o Gyanchand Rajak, R/o Vill. Chandabad, P.O.
Kurumba, P.S. Chandrapura, District- Bokaro
4(iv). Shivshankar Dhobi, S/o Late Baleshwar Dhobi
4(v). Mithun Rajak, S/o Late Baleshwar Dhobi, both residing at Tinpatya
Basti, Near Purana Durga Mandir, Bhagabandh, Nirsa cum Chirkunda,
District- Dhanbad
5. The Commissioner, C.M.P.F., Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Dhanbad
6. Project Officer, B.C.C.L. Bhagabandh Colliery, P.O. Bhagabandh, P.S.
Putki, District- Dhanbad … Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For Legal Heirs of Resp. No.4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1-3, 5 & 6 : None
-----
17/14.09.2026 On repeated calls, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.
1 to 3, 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and legal heirs of
respondent no.4 are present.
2. It transpires from the order dated 09.11.2016 that Mr. Nitish Krishna,
learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Indrajit
Sinha, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4.
-1- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
Respondent no.5 has also filed counter affidavit. Thereafter, it appears that
respondent nos.1 to 3 and respondent nos. 5 and 6 have chosen not to appear
in the case as their appearance is not shown in the orders dated 21.01.2020,
13.02.2020, 27.01.2021, 19.04.2023, 16.05.2023, 27.06.2023, 01.08.2023
and 28.08.2023. Further on 12.01.2024, Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, learned
counsel has entered his appearance on behalf of substituted respondent no.4
and took two weeks’ time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of legal heirs of
respondent no.4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel submits that he has
been instructed to appear on behalf of legal heirs of respondent no.4.
3. In view of the aforesaid orders, it transpires that respondent nos. 1 to
3 and respondent nos. 5 and 6 have got no interest to pursue this matter.
This matter is of the year 2014 and in that view of the matter, this writ petition
is being heard and decided in absence of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and
respondent nos. 5 and 6.
4. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India for quashing the order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the learned
District Judge-I, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No.80/2008, whereby, the appeal
preferred by original respondent no.4 has been allowed reversing the
judgment and order dated 13.06.2008 passed by the District Delegate,
Dhanbad in Succession Case No.144/2000.
5. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the District Delegate, Dhanbad has passed the order dated 13.06.2008
and in view of that, an appeal will lie before the High Court, however, the
learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad has exercised power of appellate authority
which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that there are other
-2- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
points also in the writ petition. He next submits that the petitioners instituted
Succession Case No.144/2000 for grant of succession certificate with regard
to schedule debt which relates to C.M.P.F account amounting to Rs.28,187/-
laying into the credit of Late Baleshwar Dhobi. He submits that Baleshwar
Dhobi was the legally married husband of petitioner no.1, namely, Parwati
Devi. He then submits that Baleshwar Dhobi died on 04.05.2000 at Central
Hospital, Dhanbad and he left the property relates to C.M.P.F. account
no.C/2592 as the deceased was an employee of Bhagabandh colliery. He also
submits that Baleshwar Dhobi left behind petitioner no.1-wife, petitioner nos.
2 and 3-minor daughters, petitioner no.3-minor son, respondent no.1 who is
the mother of Late Baleshwar Dhobi and respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are
married daughters of Late Baleshwar Dhobi. He further submits that
respondent no.4 has got no relation with Baleshwar Dhobi and in spite of that,
she has claimed C.M.P.F. amount of deceased husband of petitioner no.1 and
in view of that, learned District Delegate has rightly passed the order in favour
of the petitioners, however, the appeal preferred by respondent no.4 being
Misc. Appeal No.80/2008 was wrongly allowed by the learned District Judge-
I, Dhanbad in favour of original respondent no.4. He submits that the learned
appellate court has wrongly passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2014
and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.
6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of
respondent no.4 submits that legal heirs of respondent no.4 have instructed
him that they have already received the C.M.P.F amount. He further that the
learned appellate court has given the reasons and has discussed the
evidences placed therein and thereafter passed the impugned order. He
-3- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits
that if the District Delegate is acted as the Court of District Judge, an appeal
will lie to the District Judge not before the High Court. He also submits that
in light of Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if the order of the
District Judge has to be challenged, then only the appeal will lie before the
High Court. He next submits that in view of that original respondent no.4 has
chosen to file appeal before the District Judge-I, Dhanbad. He submits that
in view of that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record including the judgment
of the learned District Delegate as well as the learned District Judge-I,
Dhanbad. So far as the jurisdiction of the District Judge is concerned, the said
question is already set at rest in view of the judgment passed by the Bombay
High Court in the case of Vitthal Ramchandra Mali & etc. v. Smt. Laxmi
Ganpati Mali & another etc. , reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 550 .
The Bombay High Court has considered several Sections of the Indian
Succession Act including Sections 384 and 388 of the Indian Succession Act
and has come to the conclusion that if the succession case is decided by the
inferior Court to the District Judge, appeal will lie before the District Judge.
For ready reference, paragraphs 2 to 8 of the said judgment are quoted herein
below:
“2. It will be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions
of law which are necessary for deciding the aforesaid question.
Section 384 of the said Act of 1925 reads thus:
"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
-4- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
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 (5 of 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 (5 of 1908), as applied
by section 141 of that Code, an order of a District Judge
under this Part shall be final."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 388 of the said Act of 1925 reads thus:
"388. Investiture of inferior courts with jurisdiction of
District Court for purposes 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 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 Provided that
an appeal from any such Provided that an appeal from
any such order of an inferior Court as is mentioned in
order of an inferior Court as is mentioned in order of
an inferior Court as is mentioned in sub-section (1) of
section 384 shall lie to sub-section (1) of section 384
shall lie to sub-section (1) of section 384 shall lie to
the District Judge, and not to the High Court, the
District Judge, and not to the High Court, the District
Judge, and not to the High Court, and that the District
Judge may, if he thinks and that the District Judge may,
if he thinks and that the District Judge may, if he thinks
fit, by his order on the appeal, make any such fit, by
his order on the appeal, make any such fit, by his order
on the appeal, make any such declaration and direction
as that sub-section declaration and direction as that
sub-section declaration and direction as that sub-
section authorises the High Court to make by its order
authorises the High Court to make by its order
authorises the High Court to make by its order on an
appeal from an order of a District on an appeal
from an order of a District 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
-5- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
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(5 of 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
himself 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 sub-section (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."
(Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 372 of the said Act of 1925 an Application
for grant of succession certificate is required to be made to
the District Judge. Sub-section (1) of section 388 of the said
Act of 1925 empowers the State Government to invest any
court inferior in grade to a District Judge with power to
exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the
said Act of 1925 which deals with grant of succession
certificates. The said power is to be exercised by the State
Government by publishing a notification in the official gazette.
Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 388 of the said Act of
1925 states that an appeal from any such order of an inferior
court shall lie to the District Judge and not to the High Court.
Section 384 of the said Act of 1925 provides that an Appeal
shall lie to the High Court from an order of District Judge
granting, revoking or refusing the succession certificate. On
plane reading of the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 388 of
the said Act of 1925, irrespective of the value of the subject
matter of the Application for succession certificate, an Appeal
against an order passed by a court inferior in grade to a
District Judge will lie to the District Judge. The proviso will
apply when there is a notification issued under sub-section 1
of section 388 by the State Government and the court inferior
to a District Judge has exercised the power conferred by such
notification.
3. It is brought to my notice that under section 28-A of
the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as
the said Act of 1869) this Court has a power to invest in any
Judge powers of a District Judge under certain statutes.
Section 28-A reads thus:
28A. Power to invest civil judges with jurisdiction
under certain Acts.
(1) The High Court may by general or special
order invest any judge, within such local limits and
-6- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
subject to such pecuniary limitation as may be
prescribed in such order, with all or any of the powers
of a District judge or a District Court as the case may
be under the Indian Succession Act, 1865, under the
Indian Succession Act, 1865, under the Indian
Succession Act, 1865, probate and Administration Act,
1881, probate and Administration Act, 1881, probate
and Administration Act, 1881, or paragraph 5 of
Schedule III to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(2) Every order made by a Civil Judge by Every
order made by a Civil Judge by Every order made by
a Civil Judge by virtue of the powers conferred upon
virtue of the powers conferred upon virtue of the
powers conferred upon him under sub-section (1)
shall be him under sub-section (1) shall be him
under sub-section (1) shall be subject to appeal to
the High Court or subject to appeal to the High Court
or subject to appeal to the High Court or the District
Court according as the the District Court according as
the the District Court according as the amount or
value of the subject-matter amount or value of the
subject-matter amount or value of the subject-matter
exceeds or does not exceed two lakh exceeds or
does not exceed two lakh exceeds or does not exceed
two lakh rupees.
(3) Every order of the District Judge passed in appeal
under sub-section (2) from the order or a Civil Judge
shall be subject to an appeal to the High
Court under the rules contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure applicable to appeals from appellate
decrees.
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The Registrar (Judicial I) has submitted a report dated
03rd May, 2006 inviting my attention to a notification dated
th
25 October, 1890 issued by the Governor in Council. The
said notification has been issued in exercise of power
conferred on Local Government under section 26(1) of the
Succession Certificate Act, 1889 (hereinafter referred to as Act
No.VII of 1889). By the said notification, the Governor General
in Council invested with the functions of a District Judge under
the said Act No.VII of 1889 the courts of all subordinate
Judges in the State which have not been already so invested.
Under the said Act 1889 a provision was made for grant of
succession certificates and jurisdiction to grant succession
certificate was vested in District Court.
5. It will be also necessary to refer to the relevant
paragraphs of the Civil Manual and in particular paragraph
Nos.304 and 305 of Chapter XIV. The said paragraphs read
thus:
"304. Attention is invited to Government Notification
No.5861, dated the 25th October, 1890, issued under
section 26(1) of the Succession Certificate Act (VII of
1889) and printed at page 1259 of the Bombay Local
-7- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
Rules and Orders under Central Acts, Volume I, 1953
edition, under which all civil judges in this State have
for the purpose of the said Act been invested with the
function of a District Court. Although the Succession
Certificate Act, 1889, has been repealed, the
th
notification, dated 25 October, 1890, remains in force
by virtue of section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
305. (i) Under section 265 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, the High Court has appointed all Civil Judges to
act for the District Judge as delegates to grant probate
and letters of administration in non-contentious cases
arising within the local limits of their respective
jurisdiction.
(ii) In exercise of the powers conferred by section 28-A
(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act (XIV of 1869), the
High Court has invested all Civil Judges (Senior
Division), with all the powers of a District Judge to take
cognizance of any contested proceeding under Indian
Succession Act, 1925, arising within the local limits of
their respective jurisdiction that may be transferred to
them by their respective District Judges.
(iii) In exercise of the powers conferred by section 28-
A(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, (XIV of 1869), the
High Court has invested all Civil Judges (Junior Division)
with all the powers of a District Judge in the matter of
issuing Succession Certificate limited to debts and
securities to the extent of their pecuniary jurisdiction.
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The sub-section 1 of 28-A of the said Act of 1869 does
not authorise this Court to invest any inferior court with the
powers of a District Judge under Chapter X of the said Act of
1925. The sub-section 1 of section 28A authorises this Court
to invest in any Civil Judge powers of a District Judge
or District Court only under the Indian Succession Act, 1865
and the probate and Administration Act, 1881. Both the said
enactments did not confer a power on a District Judge to grant
a succession certificate. Both the enactments do not deal with
grant of a succession certificate. After the said Act of 1869
came into force, the Act VII of 1889 i.e. the Succession
Certificate Act, 1889 was enacted. Under the said Act No.
VII of 1889, a power is vested in a District Court to grant a
succession certificate in respect of debts payable to the
deceased. Section 26(1) empowers the local government by a
notification in the official gazette to invest in a court inferior in
grade to a District court with the functions of the District Court
under the Act. As stated earlier, there is a notification issued
th
under section 26(1) on 25 October, 1890 by the Governor in
Council by which the functions of the District Court under the
said Act VII of 1889 were invested in all the sub-ordinate
Judges in the State. Section 26 of the said Act VII of 1889
reads thus:
"26. (1) The Local Government may, by notification
in the official Gazette, invest any Court inferior in grade
-8- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
to a District Court with the functions of a District Court
under this Act, and may cancel or vary any such
notification.
(2) Any inferior Court so invested shall, within the
local limits of its jurisdiction, have concurrent
jurisdiction with the District Court in the exercise of all
the powers conferred by this Act upon the District Court,
and the provisions of this Act relating to the District
Court shall apply to such an inferior Court as if it were
a District Court:
Provided that an appeal from any such order of an
inferior Court as is mentioned in sub-section (1) of
section 19 shall lie to the District Court, and not to the
High Court, and that the District Court may, if it thinks
fit, by its order on the appeal, make any such
declaration and direction as that sub-section authorises
the High Court make by its order on an appeal from an
order of a District Court.
(3) An order of a District Court on an appeal from an
order of an inferior Court under the last foregoing sub-
section shall, subject to the provisions of Chapters XLVI
and XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure as applied by
section 647 of that Code, be final.
(4) The District Court may withdraw any proceedings
under this Act from an inferior Court and may either
itself dispose of them or transfer them to another such
Court established within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the District Court and having authority to
dispose of the proceedings.
(5) A notification under sub-section (1) may specify
any inferior Court specially or any class of such Courts
in any local areas.
(6) Any Civil Court which for any of the purposes of
any enactment is subordinate to, or subject to the
control of, a District Court shall for the purposes of this
section be deemed to be a Court inferior in grade to a
District Court."
7. Thus, it is apparent that sub-section 1 and sub-section
2 of section 388 of the said Act of 1925 are similar to sub-
section 1 and sub-section 2 of section 26 of the said Act VII
of 1889. The said Act of 1925 was enacted with a view to
consolidate the law applicable to intestate and testamentary
succession. The Act VII of 1889 was repealed by the said Act
of 1925. Thus, in view of section 24 of the General Clauses
th
Act, 1897 the notification issued on 25 October, 1890 under
section 26(1) of the said Act VII of 1889 shall be deemed to
be notification under sub-section 1 of section 388 of the said
Act of 1925 as the provisions of section 26(1) of the said Act
VII of 1889 are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said
Act of 1925.
th
8. Therefore, the said notification dated 25 October, 1890
will have to be treated for all purposes as a notification under
section 388(1) of the said Act of 1925. If the paragraph
-9- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
No.304 of the Civil Manual makes this position very clear, it
must be noted here that sub-paragraph No.(iii) of paragraph
No.305 of the Civil Manual does not appear to be correct as
section 28A does not confer a power on this Court to invest
any sub-ordinate court with the powers of the District Judge
to grant succession certificate. ”
8. In view of the above judgment, it is crystal clear that if the inferior
Court has passed the order, then the appeal will lie before the learned District
Judge and, as such, the point raised by Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned
counsel for the petitioners is being answered saying that the appeal against
the order of the inferior Court will lie before the District Judge.
9. So far as merit of the case is concerned, learned District Court has
considered the evidence at paragraph no.11 of the said judgment and has
found that Parwati Devi has appeared as P.W.-1, who is petitioner no.1 herein
and she has supported her succession certificate and other witnesses have
also supported succession certificate but during cross-examination, petitioner
no.1 has admitted in para 6 that death of Baleshwar Dhobi has taken place
in the house of Shanti Devi because he used to visit in house of Shanti Devi
and petitioner no.1 has not been able to disclose the date of death of Late
Baleshwar Dhobi. Further, petitioner no.1 has also stated that name of Shanti
Devi, original respondent no.4 has been entered in the service book and other
relevant place. P.W.3- Manoj Rajak has admitted in para 2 of his cross-
examination that death of Baleshwar Dhobi has taken place in hospital where
Shanti Devi was present and dead body was handed over to the son of Shanti
Devi. P.W.4, who is independent witness has stated in his examination-in-
chief that Baleshwar Dhobi has given name of Shanti Devi as nominee in the
relevant register of company and he has put signature as witness and later
on he came to know that Shanti Devi was not wife of the deceased and he
-10- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
has also confirmed in cross-examination that deceased has given name of
Shanti Devi as his nominee.
10. The learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad has further appreciated the
documentary evidence and found that the office of B.D.O. has issued family
certificate of late Baleshwar Dhobi and the same office has issued family
certificate in the name of Parwati Devi as well as Shanti Devi and both were
shown as member of the family of Late Baleshwar Dhobi and both were
shown as wife of Late Baleshwar Dhobi.
11. The learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad has further found from the
documents adduced on behalf of the contesting respondents before the
District Delegate which also goes to show that Form-F of Bharat Coking Coal
Limited related with the nomination has been filed and those documents
were marked as Ext.2, Ext.C and C/1 on behalf of the appellant before the
learned Court and that was further substituted before the learned Court by
filing certified copy because original document was taken back after
disposal, wherefrom, learned Court has found that Shanti Devi and
her children Shiv Shankar Dhobi, Krishna Dhobi, Asha Kumari, Savitri
Kumari, Sumitra Kumari, Ganga Devi and Panwa Devi have been
mentioned as nominee of deceased Baleshwar Dhobi. The progress report of
Indian National Academy School, Bhagabandh which is related with
Shiv Shankar was also filed on behalf of the appellant before the learned
Court, which was marked as Ext.A in which Baleshwar Rajak was shown
as father of Shiv Shanker Rajak and Shiv Shanker Rajak was shown as one
of the nominee of Late Baleshwar Dhobi in Form-F and other relevant
papers.
-11- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014
( 2026:JHHC:27590 )
12. In the aforesaid background, the learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad has
been pleased to reverse the judgment of the District Delegate, which clearly
suggests that he has appreciated and found that original respondent no.4
was the nominee and dead body of Baleshwar Dhobi was handed over to her
son and further documentary evidence clearly suggests that Shanti Devi was
the nominee in the document.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the learned District
Judge-I, Dhanbad has rightly passed the order. There is no illegality in the
impugned order and, as such, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
th
Dated: 14 September, 2026
Ajay/
A.F.R.
Uploaded on
th
18 September, 2026
-12- W.P. (C) No. 5189 of 2014