Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030002762026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/12/2026 Sh. Lalpianmawia and Anr. S/o Thangchhunga (L), P/A Thingdawl, Kolasib District 2: Smt. V. Salemthar VERSUS Smt. F. Lalthanmawii D/o F. Lalhmangaiha, R/o Venglai Thingdawl, Kolasib District, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. C Tlanthianghlima BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 01.09.2026 Heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the sole respondent. Having regard to the nature of the grievance projected in this appeal, the appeal is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolasib in Heirship Certificate No.35/2026, by which the Heirship Certificate Application submitted by the respondent was allowed by the Page No.# 2/4 learned Court below. 3. The main ground of challenge is that the Heirship Certificate Case No.35/2026 was allowed without hearing the appellants and that they were not aware about its pendency. The appellants contended that although the learned Court below had observed that newspaper publication was made inviting objections from interested persons to the property for which Heirship Certificate was applied, but the notice was published in the local daily ‘Kolasib Aw’, which is not widely circulated. He submits that the appellant No.1 resides in Thingdawl, while the appellant No.2 resides in Bungkawn Vengthar in Aizawl. The said local daily newspaper is not circulated either in Thingdawl or in Aizawl and therefore, the appellants were not aware that Heirship Certificate application was submitted by the respondent. He therefore, submits that the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolasib may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.1 is the nephew of the deceased person while the appellant No.2 is the niece of the deceased and therefore, they have a right to the property left behind by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the Heirship Certificate was granted by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), therefore, the appellants have filed the instant appeal before this Court. 5. Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits that the respondent is the granddaughter of the deceased person and she has every right to the property left behind by him. He submits that the present appeal is not maintainable on the ground that Section Page No.# 3/4 17(2)(a) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 (in short Act of 2005) as amended in 2021 provides that an appeal from the decree and order passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge in original proceedings of civil nature shall lie before the Court of District Judge when the suit value is less than Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs). He submits that as per the claim of the appellants themselves in the earlier proceedings i.e. Heirship Certificate Case No.266/2025 submitted by them, the value of the property is Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs). The said suit was however dismissed by the learned Court below in view of the objections submitted by the respondent. He submits that although the respondent had applied for Heirship Certificate before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), the same does not affect the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge. He therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed being not maintainable. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and have also perused the Trial Court’s Record, which is received from the learned Trial Court. 7. Although the appellants had earlier filed their Heirship Certificate Application before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), through Heirship Certificate Application No.266/2025, the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2025. The respondent thereafter had approached the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolasib through Heirship Certificate Application No.35/2026 and the application was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2026. 8. Section 17(2)(a) of the Act of 2005 (as amended) provides that an appeal from the decree and orders passed by the Court of Senior Civil Page No.# 4/4 Judge in original suits and proceedings of civil nature shall lie before the Court of District Judge when the value of the suit is less than Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs). Admittedly, the value of the suit as was claimed by the appellants in their Heirship Certificate Application No.266/2025 was Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs) and therefore, even if an order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Heirship Certificate Application No.35/2026, the pecuniary jurisdiction as provided in the said provision of the Act of 2005 (as amended) is not taken away and therefore, the party aggrieved will have to approach the Court of District Judge in terms of the relevant provisions in the Act of 2005 (as amended). 9. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant appeal solely on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellants may approach the appropriate forum with their grievance by filing an application for condonation of delay, if so necessary and the learned Court concerned shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that merit of the case is left open for the Court concerned to decide. 10. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. 11. Send back the Trial Court’s Record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant