Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Shree Prakash Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
General Public & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Testamentary Case No. 1 of 2015
Decided on : 18-11-2017
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 272 and 372 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 57 - Concurrent jurisdiction - Probate of Will - Respondent no.3 submitted that he has filed an application under Section 21 Civil Procedure Code on questioning jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with present testamentary case - Respondent no.3 that present proceedings have been filed for grant of probate of Will said to have been executed by late who expired on at Bikaner estate of deceased comprised of 12 properties - Prior to filing of proceedings before this Court two applications - Held, As, admittedly properties of deceased are situated in more than one State i.e. Rajasthan and Assam and property situated at Assam is valuing more than amount and probate is sought by petitioner having effect throughout country in view of provisions of Section 273 of Act it is High court only which would have jurisdiction to grant probate having effect throughout country - So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for applicant in case are concerned both judgments do not take into consideration provisions of Section 273 of Act and the fact that for a probate being effective throughout country has to be granted by High court if properties having valuation of more than are situated in more than one State – Order Accordingly
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding jurisdiction for probate proceedings are as follows:
When properties of the deceased are situated in more than one state, the jurisdiction for granting probate depends on the valuation of the estate and the location of the properties. If the estate includes properties in multiple states, the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate that is effective throughout the country, especially when the total value exceeds the statutory threshold (!) (!) .
The relevant statutory provision indicates that probate granted by a District Judge will have effect throughout other states only if the value of the estate outside the jurisdiction does not exceed a specified amount (Rs.10,000). If the estate's value exceeds this limit, the High Court is the appropriate forum to grant probate with nationwide effect (!) (!) .
The valuation of the estate must be assessed as of the date of the deceased's death or the date of the application, not based on the purchase date or other historical valuations (!) .
The application for probate must be accompanied by an affidavit of valuation, which should accurately declare the estate's value at the relevant date (!) (!) .
The provisions of the law emphasize that when properties are spread across multiple states, and the valuation exceeds the statutory limit, the High Court's jurisdiction is exclusive for granting probate that has effect throughout the country (!) .
The jurisdictional question raised by a party under Section 21 CPC questioning the Court's authority is generally overruled when the estate's valuation and location of properties establish the High Court's exclusive jurisdiction under the applicable statutory provisions (!) .
In summary, the legal principles affirm that for estates with properties in multiple states and a valuation exceeding the prescribed limit, the High Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate with nationwide effect. The valuation must be current and accurately declared, and the jurisdictional determination hinges on the valuation and location of the estate's properties at the relevant time.
1. The petitioner has filed three affidavits in evidence on 30/10/2017, which are taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that he has filed an application under Section 21 CPC on 17/11/2017 questioning the jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with the present testamentary case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to file any reply to the said application and is prepared to argue on the said application.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that present proceedings have been filed for grant of probate of Will dated 3/12/2009 said to have been executed by late Hanuman Prasad, who expired on 12/1/2010 at Bikaner; the estate of the deceased comprised of 12 properties. Prior to filing of the proceedings before this Court, two applications under Sections 272 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’) were filed before the District Judge, Bikaner, which were withdrawn on 19/9/2011. The petitioner has indicated that the estate of the deceased is situated in District Bikaner except the agricultural land ad measuring 1 Bigha and 15 Katha situated at Ram Nagar, Assam. It is inter alia submitted that the said agricultural land was purchased on 12/3/2002 by Pawan Kumar Jain, Mool Chand Baid, Hanuman Prasad and Jeth Mal Jain jointly; 15 katha of the aforesaid land has been acquired by the State and, therefore, the share of deceased Hanuman Prasad in the remaining land is less than 5 Biswa i.e. about 400 sq. yds., rest of the entire movable and immovable properties are situated in Bikaner District.
5. Submissions have been made that Section 300 of the Act confers concurrent jurisdiction of High court with the District court and provides that except in cases to which Section 57 of the Act applies, no High Court shall receive application for probate until the State Government by notification in the official gazette authorizes it to do so. With reference to provisions of Section 264, 270 and 271 of the Act, it was emphasized that at the time of death, Hanuman Prasad, the executant of the Will, had fixed place of abode at Bikaner and he was bonafide resident of the said place, wherein, the entire movable and immovable belonging to him are situated other than the miniscule part, which is situated at Assam and, therefore, the only competent court to entertain the probate proceedings is the District Court at Bikaner and, therefore, the probate petition deserves to be returned back.
6. Learned counsel relied on the judgments in N.S.Chopra vs. State : Testamentary Case No.38/13 decided on 23/1/2014 by Delhi High Court and Mohan Lal Futnani vs. Vishanji D. Futnani :(1990) 2 MLJ 294.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the application. It was submitted that as the properties of the deceased are situate din more than one State, the jurisdiction lies with High Court only and, therefore, the objection raised by the respondent no.3 byway of filing application is baseless and same deserves to be rejected.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
9. The valuation of movable and immovable properties of the deceased filed as Schedule I with the testamentary petition interalia indicates the valuation of the land situated at Ram Nagar, Assam as Rs.3 lakh.
10. Though, the provisions of Section 264 and 270 of the Act provides for jurisdiction of the District Court in granting and revoking probates and the circumstances in which the probate may be granted by the District Court, which indicate that probate of the Will of a deceased person may be granted by the District Judge if it appears by a petition that at the time of death, the deceased had a fixed place of abode or any property, movable or immovable, within the jurisdiction of the Judge. However, the relevant provision in the present circumstance is Section 273 of the Act, which insofar as relevant reads as under:
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
