JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. : — One Chaudhary Prasad Gupta died leaving behind him his wife Ram Dulari, two sons, Kaloo Lal and Narendra Lal and one daughter Smt. Kamla Devi. Kaloo Lal died in 1957 leaving behind him appellant. No. 1 Rukmani Devi and his sons and daughters who are the co-appellants appellants. Ram Dulari had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the property against Kaloo Lal in his lifetime which ended in a consent decree. Ram Dulari died on March 6, 1970 at Mesra where she was staying with the respondent Narendra Lal for over 20 years Before her death, Ram Dulari made last will and testament of her properties on February 7, 1970 bequeathing the same to her son respondent Narendra Lal. The respondent on the strength of the will proceeded to execute the consent decree. Under the decree, amongst other things, he was entitled to recover Rs. 40,000/- from the present appellants as well as partition and possession of land at Katni. The appellants challenged the validity of the will of late Smt. Ram Dulari and further contended that unless the will is probated, the respondent was not entitled to execute the decree. The executing Court upheld the contention and stayed the proceedings till such time as the will was admitted to probate. The respondent preferred Civil Revn. Petn. No. 222 of 1971 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court by, its judgment and order dated August 2, 1971 held that in view of the provision contained in Sec. 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 a will made by a Hindu in the State of Madhya Pradesh need not be probated and that Sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act is not attracted because the consent decree did not provide for recovering any debt. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of the executing Court and remitted the matter to the executing Court to take evidence pertaining to the question of the validity of the will. The appellants approached this Court by a special leave petition and on the special leave to appeal being granted preferred. Civil. Appeal No. 2952 of 1971. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the respondent moved a petition in the Court of 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Chhota Nagpur at Ranchi for obtaining the probate of the will of late Ram Dulari. The jurisdiction of the Court was invoked on the allegation that late Ram Dulari was staying with Narendra Lal at Mesra for a period of over 20 years before her death. The learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Chhota Nagpur at Ranchi as per his order dated July 8, 1977 granted the probate of the will. Consequently the appeal pending before this Court was dismissed on February 21, 1978. Thereafter the respondent approached the executing Court to proceed further with the execution application. The appellants, in the meantime, filed a suit questioning the validity, legality and genuineness of the will of Smt. Ram Dulari. When the executing Court proceeded with the execution application, the appellants appeared and moved an application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Code with a request to stay further proceedings of the execution application on the ground : i) that the will in favour of Narendra Lal was a forged one; ii) that the 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Chhota Nagpur at Ranchi had no jurisdiction to grant probate since the property covered by the decree was of the value of more than Rs. 1 lac and the same was situated beyond, the Courts original jurisdiction; iii) that the probate could not be operative in the State of Madhya Pradesh and iv) that the civil suit challenging the validity of the will is pending. The executing Court held that the 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Chhota Nagpur at Ranchi had no jurisdiction to grant the probate of the will in respect of the property exceeding Rs. 10,000/- in value situated in another State and therefore the grant was not valid. Consequently it was held that the respondent mus