THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2780 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The first respondent filed O.P.No.93 of 1999 in the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of a Will, dated 06.06.1996, said to have been executed by Smt.Gollapudi Seshirekhamma, who died on 31.08.1998. The facts leading to the filing of the O.P. were stated. The appellants resisted the claim on several grounds. Through its judgment, dated 20.06.2003, the trial Court allowed the O.P. and granted probate in respect of the Will referred to above. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The appellants challenge the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well as on merits. The first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the ground as to lack of jurisdiction was not raised before the trial Court. The probate jurisdiction is not general or universal. It is conferred on specified Courts under the Indian Succession Act. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in INKOLLU SASIKALA vs. INKOLLU VENKATA MURTHY[1]. After examining the relevant provisions of law, this Court held that: “From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that O.P. filed by the petitioner for grant of probate was not maintainable and the decree granted by the trial Court to that extent is without jurisdiction. As for the adjudication of rights in relation to securities and debts, under a Will, the trial Court is specifically conferred with the power. While adjudicating the claims, in an application filed under Section 370 of the Act for grant of succession certificate, the trial Court can certainly take into account the contents of a Will, if it is otherwise proved. However, any finding recorded in relation to the Will in an O.P. filed under Section 370 of the Act cannot hold good insofar as it relates to immovable properties. Though the O.P. filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in law, the adjudication undertaken by the trial Court, with the participation of the parties, cannot be permitted to go waste. Further, respondents 2 and 3, the appellants herein, did not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the O.P. before the trial Court. This Court is of the view that the adjudication undertaken by the trial Court can be restricted to the one for grant of succession certificate, duly protecting the rights of the parties in relation to the other properties.” The facts of the present case squarely fit into the precedent referred to above. As in the instant case, in that case also, the plea of lack of jurisdiction was not raised. Since the question goes to the root of the matter, it is not necessary that it must have been raised before the trial Court. On this short ground, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the parties and in particular, to the first respondent to place reliance upon the Will in properly constituted proceedings as and when necessity arises. Various questions relating thereto shall be examined on their own merits, without reference to any observations made in this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.08.2009 kdl [1] 2004 (6) ALT 18