Appeals against succession certificate orders by inferior courts lie before the District Judge.

Late Baleshwar Dhobi, an employee of Bhagabandh Colliery, died on 04.05.2000, leaving a CMPF account containing approximately ₹28,187.

His alleged widow, Parwati Devi, along with their minor children, instituted Succession Case No. 144 of 2000 seeking a succession certificate in respect of the CMPF dues.

The District Delegate, Dhanbad granted the succession certificate in favour of the petitioners by order dated 13.06.2008.

Original respondent no. 4, claiming an interest in the deceased’s estate, preferred Misc. Appeal No. 80 of 2008.

The District Judge-I, Dhanbad allowed the appeal and reversed the District Delegate’s order on 21.08.2014.

The petitioners challenged the appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that an appeal from the District Delegate’s order lay directly before the High Court and that respondent no. 4 had no relationship with the deceased.

The legal heirs of respondent no. 4 defended the appellate judgment and stated that the CMPF amount had already been received.

Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires an application for a succession certificate to be made before the District Judge.

Under Section 388(1)–(2), an inferior court invested with the powers of a District Judge exercises concurrent jurisdiction, but an appeal from its order lies to the District Judge and not to the High Court.

Section 384 provides for an appeal to the High Court from an order of the District Judge, while Section 388(3) makes the District Judge’s appellate order subject to the applicable provisions concerning reference, revision and review.

The Court relied on Vitthal Ramchandra Mali v. Smt. Laxmi Ganpati Mali, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 550, which held that an appeal from an inferior court exercising jurisdiction under Section 388 lies before the District Judge and not directly before the High Court.

The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference where the subordinate court has acted within jurisdiction and its decision is supported by the evidence.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ jurisdictional objection by applying the statutory distinction between an order passed by a District Judge and one passed by an inferior court invested with the District Judge’s powers.

Since the District Delegate was an inferior court exercising jurisdiction under Section 388, the appeal before the District Judge was competent; a direct appeal to the High Court would arise only from an order passed by the District Judge in the original jurisdiction contemplated by Section 384.

On merits, the District Judge had relied on Parwati Devi’s admissions regarding the circumstances of Baleshwar Dhobi’s death, the presence of respondent no. 4, and the nomination records.

The evidence also showed that respondent no. 4’s name appeared as nominee in the employer’s records, that the deceased’s body was handed over to her son, and that official family certificates described both Parwati Devi and respondent no. 4 as wives or members of the deceased’s family.

The nomination forms and related school records further supported the appellate court’s conclusion regarding respondent no. 4 and her children.

Finding that the District Judge had properly appreciated the evidence and committed no jurisdictional or legal error, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 227.

It further held that the District Judge-I, Dhanbad had correctly reassessed the evidence and reversed the District Delegate’s order granting the succession certificate to the petitioners.

Finding no illegality in the order dated 21.08.2014, the Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.