AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner in this case obtained a certificate of succession under Act VII of 1889 to collect certain debts of one Gour Sunder Kundu, Subsequently he applied for extension of the certificate u/s 10 of the Act to collect other debts. That application was refused by the Munsif who was empowered to deal with applications under this Act. An appeal against his order was preferred to the District Judge, and he on the authority of the Madras High Court, Venkateswarlu v. Brahmaravuthu Raja Krishnaji (1901) 25 Mad. 634, held that no appeal lay. We are unable to accept the view of the learned District Judge. He has overlooked the fact that there is a marked difference between the facts of the present case and those of the case on which he relied. In the Madras case the appeal was preferred against an order granting an application u/s 10 for extension. Here the appeal is against an order refusing such an extension. Section 19 read with the proviso to Clause (2) of Section 26 of the Act lays down what are appealable orders under this Act, and they are orders granting, refusing or revoking certificates. We think an order refusing certificate as to some of the debts alleged to be due to the deceased comes within the terms of Section 19.
We accordingly make this rule absolute. We set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that he do re-hear the appeal according to law. Costs of this Rule will abide the result, and assess hearing fee at one gold mohur.