A probate court is exclusively limited to determining the genuineness and execution of a Will and cannot adjudicate substantive title disputes. Furthermore, any party with a potential interest in the estate, however remote, must be served notice and given an opportunity to contest the probate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

Nelson Sailo, J Heard Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raymond Lalbiakzama, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

[2.] This is a second appeal filed by the appellants by invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the decision of the Lower First Appellate Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 passed in RFA No.8 of 2023, wherein, the first appeal preferred by the instant appellants have been dismissed. By filing the first appeal, the appellants had challenged the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Code of Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Probate Case No.24/2022, by which the Will left behind by Sri Biakchhunga, father of the respondent dated 22.10.2019 was probated in favour of the respondent. Therefore, by filing this second appeal, the appellants have challenged both the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court as well as by the Probate Court.

[3.] The dispute between the parties pertains to a certain property covered by LSC No.70/2003 located at Electric Veng, Aizawl with residential building standing thereon. The said property was bought by Sri. Biakchhunga and his third wife Smt. Laldangliani in the year 1999. Sri. Biakchhunga had three wives and the instant respondent is his son born out of his wedlock with the first wife. As per the appellants, they are the nieces of Smt. Laldangliani who is the third wife of Sri. Biakchhunga. After the death of Sri. Biakchhunga on 21.11.2019, Smt. Laldangliani requested the appellants to come and live with her on the said property and so while they were all living together in the said property, Smt. Laldangliani expired on 03.08.2022. Smt. Laldangliani during her lifetime, had obtained Heirship Certificate No.115 of 2020 for the said property vide order dated 03.02.2020. The Land Settlement Certificate was then mutated in her name on the strength of the Heirship Certificate. However, she expired on 03.08.2022 bequeathing the property to the appellants.

[4.] It is the case of the appellants that the sole respondent served a legal notice to their mother on 15.08.2022 accusing Smt. Laldangliani (late) of illegally and secretly obtaining Heirship Certificate for the property in question while asking the notice receiver to stop the development of the property in question and to vacate the same and also to surrender the LSC to the respondent. After serving the legal notice, the respondent submitted an application for probate of the Will dated 22.10.2019 said to have been left behind by Sri. Biakchhunga (late). Upon filing of the application for probate of the said Will on 31.08.2022, the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III registered the same as Probate Case No.24/2022 and thereafter, fixed 14.10.2022 for the appearance of the applicant i.e., the present respondent. Consequently, vide order dated 23.11.2022, the Will was probated in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved with the same, the present appellants filed the Regular First Appeal before the Lower Appellant Court which however came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2023. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed.

[5.] This Court vide order dated 11.06.2024 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the decision of the First Appellate Court that non-issuance of notice to the Appellants by the Trial Court in Probate Case No.24/2022 did not prejudice them despite being in possession of the disputed property is perverse and illegal.

2. Whether the First Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to decide the question of title of bequeathment of the disputed property in dispute in a probate case.

3. Whether the decision of the First Appellate Court being perverse is liable to be set aside and quashed.”

[6.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the Lower First Appellate Court erred in law in not issuing notice to persons interested in the property sought to be prob