Jharkhand High Court
Sugriv Prasad vs Ravi Shankar Kumar on 4 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:33161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.236 of 2009
------
Sugriv Prasad, son of Late Mahangu Sao, resident of Nagar Untari, P.O. and
P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Ravi Shankar Kumar
2. Uma Shankar Kumar
3. Daya Shankar
All sons of Baijnath Prsad
4. Smt. Renu Devi, wife of Vijay Prasad and daughter of Baijnath Prasad
Sl. Nos.1 to 3 residents of Village Pachadumar, P.O. and P.S. Bhavnathpur,
District Garhwa, at present residing at Nagar Untari, P.O. and P.S. Nagar
Untari, District Garhwa, Sl. No.4 resident of Village Henho, P.O. and P.S.
Nagar Untari, District Garhwa
5. Saryu Prasad
6. Hazari Prasad
7. Gopal Prasad
All sons of Late Mahangu Sao
8. Mandip Narayan Prasad
9. Umesh Prasad
10. Kamesh Prasad
11. Ramesh Prasad
12. Dinesh Prasad
All sons of Late Lalji Sao, All residents of Nagar Untari, P.O. and P.S.
Nagar Untari, District Garhwa
13. Collector, Garhwa, P.O. and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1-4: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
------
Order No.17 / Dated : 04.11.2025
Instant appeal is filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 against the judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by 1st Additional
District Judge, Garhwa in Title Suit No.2/2003 arising out of Probate Case
No.5/2000 by which the probate has been granted in favour of the
plaintiffs/respondents with respect to the registered WILL executed on
05.10.1994.
2. As per the case of the plaintiffs, Harihar Sahu was the sole owner of
the property detailed in Schedule A and B of the plaint, who died issueless
leaving behind his widow Murat Sahun as a successor. Murat Sahun had no
one to look after her, consequently, was residing with the
2025:JHHC:33161
plaintiffs/beneficiaries, who were sons and daughter of her brother. Out of
natural love and affection, she executed WILL No.20 dated 05.10.1994, in
favour of the petitioners for properties detailed in Schedule A and B of the
plaint which was her first and last WILL. After her death, application for
probate of the WILL was filed which was contested by the present appellant.
The grant was contested inter alia on the ground that the said property was
joint family property and the testator had no right to execute the WILL.
3. On contest, the probate application was converted into
testamentary suit under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act. The
learned trial Court framed the mainly three issues: -
I. Whether Murat Sahu had executed the registered WILL on 05.10.1994
in her good health and within sound mind in favour of the plaintiffs?
II. Is the registered WILL filed by the plaintiffs is the last and genuine
WILL of Murat Sahun and has been proved as per law?
III. Whether there are any impediments in granting probate in respect of
the properties described in the WILL filed by the plaintiffs?
4. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs including
the attesting witnesses and relevant documents including WILL (Exhibit 1)
and other relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as
Exhibits 1 to 12 series.
5. Learned trial Court recorded a finding of facts in favour of the
plaintiffs and allowed the probate application.
6. Appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that the land was
originally recorded in the name of Gouri Sahu and Ram Sahay Sahu.
Harihar Sahu was only son of the Ram Sahay Sahu and he died issueless and
the defendants/objectors are legal heirs and successors of Gouri Sahu. On
the whole, testamentary capacity of the testator to execute the WILL with
respect to schedule property, has been questioned. It is further contended
that the names of the relatives of the testator have not been completely
disclosed. Harihar Sahu died much before coming into force of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, testator did not acquire any right or title
by way of inheritance over the schedule property.
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents have defended the
impugned order.
2025:JHHC:33161
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides and on perusal of the materials on record, admittedly the WILL was
registered. Although, there is no requirement of a WILL to be registered,
however, when it has been duly registered, the presumption of its due
execution is attached in terms of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The
presumption is rebuttable, but the same is to be rebutted by leading
evidence against the presumption of its due execution. Jurisdiction of a
probate Court is limited to determination of the WILL executed by the
testator as his last WILL. Whether he had title and right to execute the WILL
with respect to the schedule property, is beyond scope of the Court
considering the probate application. It has been held by the Apex Court in
Krishna Kumar Birla vs Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300, that
Court had nothing to do with the law of inheritance or succession. It is solely
concerned as to how and in what manner an application for grant of probate
is to be filed, considered and granted or refused.
9. In the present case, the WILL has been proved by the attesting
witness in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section
68 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no material to raise any suspicious
surrounding circumstance to raise any doubt over its due execution. The
arguments of the appellant is mainly with regard to the title which is beyond
consideration while allowing or refusing probate application. I do not find
any merit in this appeal.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Interlocutory
Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
Uploaded
07.11.2025
