https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272872 A notification under Section 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 gives an authorised subordinate judge an independent jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of contentious probate proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, operating beyond the limited role of a District Delegate. The provisions on District Delegates and subordinate judges operate in different fields, and the earlier contrary view was rejected for not giving effect to the plain terms and object of Section 29(1). Where both the District Judge and subordinate court have concurrent jurisdiction, Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is only a rule of procedure and does not oust the District Judge's jurisdiction; the District Judge should entertain the matter or transfer it, rather than return the probate application again. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2018 12:06:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272872 A notification under Section 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 gives an authorised subordinate judge an independent jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of contentious probate proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, operating beyond the limited role of a District Delegate. The provisions on District Delegates and subordinate judges operate in different fields, and the earlier contrary view was rejected for not giving effect to the plain terms and object of Section 29(1). Where both the District Judge and subordinate court have concurrent jurisdiction, Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is only a rule of procedure and does not oust the District Judge's jurisdiction; the District Judge should entertain the matter or transfer it, rather than return the probate application again. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272872