Point of law: The Succession Act is a self-contained code insofar as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the probate court. This is clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the probate court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the will. Thus it does no more than establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor. Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself.

JUDGMENT :

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners requested to delete the respondents No. 2 and 3 as they are not proper party.

Learned advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection if permission to delete the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is granted. Permission as sought for stands granted.

1. Present petitioners are the Original Opponent Nos. 1 and 4 in Civil Misc. Application No. 97 of 2015 before the trial Court have challenged legality and validity of the order passed in application below Exh.54 by the learned 28th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on 31.8.2019 filed by them and requested to allow the said application below Exh.54.

2. The short facts leading to the present case are as under:-

2.1 Respondent No.1 filed probate application being Probate Application No. 97 of 2015 on 22nd June, 2015 before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Baroda, seeking probate/letters of administration of Will dated 12.2.2015 alleged to have been executed by the father of the petitioners in favour of respondent No.1. Upon issuance of public notice, present petitioners appeared before the Court and filed their objections with regard to issuance of Probate/Letters of Administration in favour of applicant -respondent No.1 on the ground that Will dated 12th February, 2015 was forged and concocted one. The petitioners also filed Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 2016 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on 25th June, 2016 with a prayer to pass decree of cancellation of forged Will dated 12th February, 2015 alleged to have been executed by their father in favour of respondent No.1. They further prayed for decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from transferring the disputed properties. On 27th August, 2018, petitioners filed an application below Exh.54 in Civil Misc. Application No. 97 of 2015 with a prayer for consolidation of two proceedings i.e. Civil Misc. Application No. 97 of 2015 and Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 2016 and for recording common evidence of both these proceedings. Petitioners also filed an application below Exh. 55 seeking hearing of the application below Exh. 54 prior in point of time before the proceedings further with the probate proceedings. Respondent No.1 opposed the said application below Exh. 54 filed by the petitioners. After hearing the parties, learned 28th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara rejected the application below Exh.54 filed by the petitioners vide order dated 31st August, 2019. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners has strongly argued that the reasons arrived at by learned Judge rejecting the application below Exh.54 are erroneous and illegal. That, the objection filed by the present petitioners in the Probate Application No. 97 of 2005 and ground raised in the plaint of Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 2016 are bound to be same as to how the Will dated 12th February 2015 was executed by the father of the petitioners in favour of respondent No.1 and it is forged and concocted one. That, two more prayers were made by the petitioners in respect of possession and restraining defendants in transferring the suit properties of Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 2016 filed by them. That, learned trial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction by rejecting the application below Exh.54 as no prejudice would have been caused to respondent No.1. That, the consolidation of two proceedings would have prevented multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties. That, observations made by trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 2016 which was filed subsequent in point of time (after one year) then the Probate Proceedings i.e. Civil Misc. Application No. 97 of 2015 are not proper for rejection of the application, as common issues were involved in both the proceedings. Therefore, it was proper that common evidence is led by both the parties so as to avoid the possib