Sarita Kumari vs Navin Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 7357 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sarita Kumari vs Navin Kumar on 9 December, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                     2025:JHHC:37138


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       M. A. No.402 of 2025
    Sarita Kumari, W/o Sri Navin Kumar and Daughter-in-law of Late Ayodhya
    Pandey and Late Aruna Pandey, R/o Jhalpo Road, Jhumri Telaiya, PO-
    Jhumri Telaiya, PS- Telaiya, District- Koderma, Jharkhand.
                                                            .... .. ... Appellant(s)
                       Versus
    1. Navin Kumar, S/o Late Ayodhya Pandey, R/o Jhalpo Road, Jhumri
       Telaiya, Ward No.7, PO- Jhumri Telaiya, PS- Telaiya, District- Koderma,
       Jharkhand.
    2. Sunita Singh, W/o Ram Kishore Singh and D/o Late Ayodhya Pandey,
       R/o Palam Vihar, C-2 Block First Floor-1259, PO and PS- Palam Vihar,
       District- Gurugram (Haryana).               .. ... ...Respondent(s)
           ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Anwar Hussain, Advocate Mr. Jayant Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Resp.(s) : Mr. Bijay Kr. Sinha, Advocate ......

04/ 09.12.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by learned District Judge- III, Koderma in Original Suit No.02 of 2022 [arising out of Probate Case No.02 of 2022] whereby and whereunder the application of probate with respect to Schedule-A, B and C property has been partly allowed.

2. Learned Probate Court has held that since the Schedule-B property only came within the jurisdiction of District- Koderma and Schedule- A & C property came within the jurisdiction of High Court at Patna, therefore, the probate application was partly allowed only with respect to Schedule- B property.

3. The question that has been raised in the instant appeal is whether a probate can be granted with respect to schedule property, if it fall within jurisdiction of different courts.

4. In the present case, the probate court has confined the grant of probate to the schedule B property, which was within its territorial jurisdiction, but has not passed any order with respect to the schedule, A and schedule C as it was beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

5. This court is of the view that, learned Probate Court erred in refusing the grant of probate.

6. The provisions of the Succession Act are emphatic on the point that a Probate Application is maintainable under Section 270 of the Indian

2025:JHHC:37138

Succession Act, 1925 with respect to the estate of deceased person if it appears that testator or intestate as the case may be at the time of his death had a fixed abode or property movable or immovable within the Judge's jurisdiction. This provision is further reinforced by Section 273 of the said Act which provides that once a probate and letters of administration is granted by a District Judge wherein the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode situate within the jurisdiction of such a judge and the said Judge certifies that value of the property and the estate effected beyond the limits of the estate does exceed Rs.10,000/- shall unless otherwise directed by the grants have live effect throughout.

7. Here in the present case, the probate application has not been contested by any party and it is beyond dispute and reproach that Testator- Aruna Pandey was resident of Jhalpo Road, Near Vidyapuri, Ward No.7, Jhumri Telaiya, who executed her WILL dated 24.03.2017 and died on 08.04.2021 within PO and PS- Jhumri Telaiya, District- Koderma.

8. Further the part of the Schedule Property detailed in Schedule -B was situate within the jurisdiction of Koderma, therefore, the District Judge, Koderma has jurisdiction not only grant probate with respect to Schedule -B property, but also with respect to Schedule -A & C property of which the Testator was the lawful owner. Further, testator was living in Koderma and died there, therefore, the Court at Koderma had jurisdiction to allow probate with respect to the property as detailed in A and C.

9. After the probate is granted, Section 274 of the Indian Succession Act mandates that the High Court or the District Judge to send the certificate of such grant to the Districts in another State where the property is situated in terms of Section 274 (3) of the said Act, 1925.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Sandeep/-

Uploaded 11.12.2025.