Jharkhand High Court
General Public Through Dewanti Devi vs Smt. Manju Devi on 16 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 348 of 2024
General Public through Dewanti Devi, Wife of Jogendra Kandu, Daughter of
Shiv Nandan Kandu, R/o Village-Petarbar, Kandu Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Petarbar,
Dist.-Bokaro, presently residing at village-Junodih, Tola-Garbargadha, P.O.-
Argamo, P.S.-Nawadih, District-Bokaro .... .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manju Devi, Wife of Krishna Kumar Prasad, R/o Village-Petarbar, P.O. &
P.S.-Petarbar, District-Bokaro ... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant :Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate
Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
------
Order No. 03 / Dated : 16.10.2025.
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 against the grant of probate of WILL executed by
Ganga Devi on 16.10.1998 in favour of respondent-Manju Devi with respect
to the properties detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint.
2. It is argued by learned counsel the appellant that Ganga Devi was the first
wife of Shiv Nandan Sao, whereas Bilkhi Devi, mother of the present
appellant Dewanti Devi was the second wife of Shiv Nandan Sao.
3. It is contended that by concealing the above fact and without impleading
Dewanti Devi in the probate case, the probate application was filed in which
the probate has been granted for the said WILL.
4. It is argued that the impugned order suffers from infirmity on two counts.
Firstly, Ganga Devi being not sole heir and descendant of Shiv Nandan
Sahu had no exclusive right to transfer the property by testamentary way of
WILL to Manju Devi.
Secondly, by not impleading Bilkhi Devi or Dewanti Devi in the probate
case, who were necessary parties, the probate was obtained fraudulently and,
therefore, it is fit to be set aside in terms of Section 263 (b) of the Indian
Succession Act.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-original probate
applicant that the instant appeal is not maintainable as the appellant was not
even a party before the Probate Court. The said WILL was registered on
2025:JHHC:32369
16.10.1998 and the registered document carries a presumption of genuineness
and the said presumption has not been rebutted.
6. So far the testamentary capacity to dispose of the property is concerned, the
title of the property cannot be looked into in a probate case for which a
separate suit has already been filed vide Original Title Suit No. 54/2021. It is
contended that since the appellant did not come from the line of Shiv Nandan
Sao and the relationship has been denied, therefore, she was not impleaded
in the case. However, citation was issued to the public at large, but no
objection was raised from any quarter.
7. None appeared before this Court on behalf of the public to contest the probate
case, or to state that the Dewanti Devi was also the heir and descendant of
Shiv Nandan Sao. Attesting WILL has been duly proved and one of the
attesting witnesses as per requirement under Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act has already proved
the WILL.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, there
cannot be quarrel with the legal proposition that hearing in probate cases are
summary in nature and confined to adjudication, if the WILL was the last
WILL of the testator executed in a free and disposing state of mind. Whether
the testator had title over the property for which the WILL was executed is
beyond the zone of consideration by a Probate Court. The title can be
determined in a suit duly filed before a Civil Court.
9. The genealogy, as asserted by the appellant at this stage, has been denied and
admittedly, the appellant was not a party before the learned Trial Court. The
WILL was the registered WILL and has been duly proved before the learned
Probate Court. If the appellant had a right over the property of Shiv Nandan
Sao and that is established in the suit, it goes without saying that the
testamentary disposition of property made by Ganga Devi will be confined to
the rights she had over such property.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed with cost.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
