The Patna High Court held that probate proceedings are not a place for the determination of question of title or interest over a property and the determination over the question of title could be done only by filing a separate suit.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner who challenged the order of the District Court, Vaishali in impleading one Jammun Singh (late father of the Respondents) as a party to the probate proceedings before the District Court. The petitioner claims to be the executor of the will of one Ramrati Devi, who is said to have received interest in the property from late Firangi Bhagat. The respondents claim Ramrati Devi did not possess any title over the said property.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court passed the order impugned without consideration of the objection made by the petitioner. Learned trial court did not consider that in an earlier round of litigation, the son of the present intervenor was denied impleadment in the present case and it was upheld by this Court as well. Further, it was submitted that a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code cannot be entertained in a proceeding for grant of probate or letter of administration and the petitioner has no caveatable interest in the present case hence, the learned trial court completely erred on the point when it ordered for impleadment of the respondents in the LOA case before it.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had wrongly claimed that after the death of Ramrati Devi, the petitioner was substituted in her place in the suit as a plaintiff as the name of the petitioner was added in the case to represent the estate of the deceased plaintiff.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that probate proceedings are not a place for the determination of question of title or interest over a property. It referred to Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, which empowers the District Court to call upon persons who claim to have any interest in the estate of the deceased. Further, it was stated that the probate proceedings are merely a general citation issued by the Court under this provision to enable the caveators to oppose the proceedings before granting probate.
Further the court stated that the interest claimed by the caveators in a probate proceeding must not be one which would have the effect of destroying the testator's estate and thus, the remedy to claim any interest which is adverse to the testator cannot be before the court deciding on probate of wills and further stated that any question of title cannot be gone into in a probate proceeding and construction of Will relating to right, title and interest of any person is beyond the domain of probate court, and hence the Probate Court is not competent to determine the question of title or nature of ownership of the property of the testator or even the existence of property itself.
The court observed that in the present case, as the respondents are questioning the testator's (Ramrati Devi) title, the issue cannot be adjudicated in a probate proceeding. Even though the respondents may have a claim in the said property, they cannot seek impleadment in the probate proceedings before the District Court since they are questioning the title of the testator.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Makhan Prasad Singh v. Mishrilal Singh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case no.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.383 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Ratan Kumar Sinha, Mr Majojeshwar Pd. Sinha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Madanjeet Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
