Rama Jois, J.
1. This appeal is presented by the appellant under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, read with Section 18 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, against the order of the District Judge, Karwar, dismissing the application presented by the appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.
2. The facts of the case, in brief are these: The appellant had earlier filed Original Suit No. 46 of 1969 before the Court of Munsiff, Kumta, praying for a declaration that one had become the owner of certain immoveable properties and the respondent had no right or interest in the said property. The claim was based upon a will said to have been executed by Bhikki @ Bhagirathi the grand mother of the appellant. The suit was decreed and the Judgment and decree of the Munsiff was confirmed by Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A.No. 178 of 1972. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the respondent had preferred R.S.A. No. 224 of 1976 before this Court. That second appeal was allowed by this Court on 8-11-1978. This Court recorded a finding that the will was not proved in accordance with law and the finding of the Courts below to the effect that the will had been proved was erroneous. Accordingly, the second appeal was allowed and the suit of the appellant was dismissed.
3. Thereafter the appellant filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Karwar for grant of letters of administration in respect of the same will on the basis of which the earlier suit was filed. The respondent entered caveat and consequently, it was registered as a suit. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the appellant the District Judge recorded a finding to the effect that the will was proved in accordance with law. However, he dismissed the application on the ground that the application was barred by resjudicata. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant presented this appeal.
4. The question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the finding recorded by the Court below that the application of the appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was barred by principle of res-judicata, is correct?
5. In order to find out as to whether the view taken by the learned Judge is correct or not, what should be looked into in the first instance is, whether the Court of Munsiff which decided the earlier suit had the jurisdiction to decide that suit in which the appellant claimed title to the same property on the basis of the same will. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act provides that -
'No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in (India) has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed.'.
But the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 213 provides that -
'In case of wills made by any Hindu where such will are of classes specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57.'
Section 57 of the Act reads -
'The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein apply -
(a) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of judicature at Madras and Bombay, and
(b) to all such will and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property situate, within those territories or limits; and
(c) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by Clauses (a) and (b).
Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such will or codicil. It is not the case of the appellant that the will in question comes within the purview of either Clause (a) or (b) of Section 57. Therefore, it is clear that Section 213 of the Succession Act is not attracted to this case. Thus, there was no statutory bar to the jurisdiction of the Munsiff to consider the claim of the appellant to the property in question, in the suit on the basis of the will on which the appellant relied. From this it follows that the finding recorded in those proceedings which became final, is binding on the appellant. As stated earlier, though the Court of Munsiff and the learned Civil Judge decided the issue in favour of the appellant it was reversed by this Court holding that the will was not proved in accordance with law. That decision of this Court has become final and binding on the appellant as it was not appealed against.
6. In support of the contention that the decision in the earlier proceeding would not operate as res judicata the appellant had relied on the decision of the Orissa High Court in CHINTAMONI BARIK AND ANR. v. CHARI BEWA : AIR1962Ori224 . In that decision the precise question that arise for consideration was whether the decision of a Civil Court in an earlier suit regarding title to the same property operated as resjudicata in the subsequent proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. The Orissa High Court held that the only question before the Civil Court in the suit was as to the right or tile of the party concerned to the property and not the question as to the validity of the will as that question fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 276 of the Succession Act and it was not competent for the Civil Court to decide that question. Sri. B.V. Acharya learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the ratio of the decision was inapplicable to this case for the reason that, that was a case to which Sub-section (1) of Section 213 was attracted.
7. In our view it is only to cases to which Section 213(1) is attracted, no other Court except the District Court concerned would have jurisdiction to decide the issue as to the validity of the will and to grant probate or letter of administration. In such a case even if there was an earlier suit claiming right or title to the property as a legatee under a will and it had been decided by the Court in which the suit was filed or even in appeal, the decision in such a suit, of the original Court or the first Appellate Court or even the High Court in first or second appeal would not operate as resjudicata as in such a case the Court before which the suit was instituted would have had no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or validity of the will. But if in a case to which the bar created under Section 213(1) is not attracted if the party chooses to file a suit claiming right or title to the property on the basis of a will and for purposes of deciding such a suit it becomes necessary for the Court before which the suit is filed to decide the question regarding the validity of the will also and that question is decided, such a decision becomes final and binding on the parties and thereafter if the same party chooses to file an application under Section 276 of the Succession Act, the decision rendered' in the suit would operate as resjudicata. The position in this case is exactly the same. Therefore, in our opinion the learned District Judge was right in holding that the decision rendered in R.S.A.No. 224 of 1976 operated as resjudicata against the appellant. No other question arises for consideration.
8. In the result we make the following order: The appeal is dismissed.