The probate court's function is limited to determining the genuineness and due execution of the will and does not decide questions of title or the existence of the property itself. The civil court is competent to decide the suit for title and injunction based on evidence, even after the grant of probate.

( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) LEAVE grained.

( 3 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 22nd of march, 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in civil Revision No. 3801 of 2002 whereby an order dated 18th of January, 2000 of the learned Civil Judge, Jallundhar, dismissing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the appellant, was affirmed.

( 4 ) ORIGINALLY, the suit properties stood in the name of Ishar Singh (paternal grandfather of the appellant) which was subsequently mutated in the name of his two sons, S. Hazara Singh and S. Kirpal Singh. Late S. Kirpal Singh was the father of the appellant. Late S. Kirpal Singh died leaving behind some properties, both movable and immovable comprising agricultural land measuring 48 Kanal 10 Marlas situated at Jallandhar a residential house bearing No. 148, Sector 27a, Chandigarh and two deposits of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively (hereinafter referred to as "the suit properties" ). According to the appellant, the suit properties left behind by late S. Kirpal Singh were their ancestral properties. After eight years of the death of late S. Kirpal Singh, the respondent No. 1 propounded an unregistered Will left behind by late S. Kirpal Singh and applied for probate thereof in the High Court of punjab and Haryana. As per the said Will executed by late S. Kirpal Singh, the suit properties, both movable and immovable, were bequeathed by late S. Kirpal Singh in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. Only a right of residence was given in favour of the widow of late S. Kirpal Singh and his unmarried daughter. In the aforesaid probate proceeding, objections were, however, filed by the appellant alleging that the said Will was a forged and fabricated one. However, the probate was granted to the respondent No. 1 by the High Court and thereafter, the matter came up before this Court which also affirmed the order of the High Court granting probate in respect of the Will executed by late S. Kirpal Singh. Subsequent to the grant of probate of the Will of late S. Kirpal Singh in respect of the suit properties more precisely on 9th of March, 1995, the appellant instituted a civil suit for declaration and injunction wherein the appellant sought a declaration to the effect that the suit properties were joint Hindu family properties.

( 5 ) IN the suit filed at the instance of the appellant, the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary issue by filing an application saying that after the probate having been granted of the Will executed by late S. Kirpal Singh, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and accordingly the suit should be dismissed. The preliminary issue framed by the Civil court is to the following effect:

"whether this Court has jurisdiction in view of the probate granted by the Hon'ble punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated April 5, 1991, confirmed by the divisional Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 1st December, 1993 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 2-7-1994. "

( 6 ) BY an order dated 18th of January, 2000, the learned Civil Judge, Jallandhar dismissed the suit on a finding that once the probate was granted by a competent probate Court, and in view of the fact that in the suit the appellant had not challenged the probate proceeding, the Civil Court cannot have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the aforesaid ground and the suit was dismissed.

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved, a revision petition was filed before the High Court and the high Court by the impugned judgment and order had also affirmed the order of the civil Court holding that the suit was not maintainable after the grant of probate by the competent probate Court. The present special leave petition has been filed against the aforesaid order of the High Court in respect of which leave has already been granted.

( 8 ) IN our view, the High Court as well a