IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Dr. Ratnesh Kumar @ Ratnesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 4700 of 2019
Decided On : 20-07-2021
Probate - Intervention Application - Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC - [Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Probate Court, the limited scope of probate proceedings, and the inability of the Probate Court to decide questions of title. The court cited the case of Pasupatib Nath Das (dead) Vs. Chanchal Kumar Das (dead) by legal representatives & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 547 to emphasize the limited scope of probate proceedings and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court to consider the genuineness of the Will.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an intervention application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as an opposite party in a probate case. The application was dismissed by the learned Court below, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited to considering the genuineness of the Will and cannot decide questions of title. The petitioner was advised to seek appropriate civil remedy to protect his share of land/property.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Probate Court, the scope of probate proceedings, and the petitioner's right to be impleaded in the probate case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Probate Court has limited jurisdiction and can only consider the genuineness of the Will. Questions of title cannot be decided in probate proceedings.
Final Decision: The present writ petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate civil remedy in accordance with the law to protect his share of land/property.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 3 of 2017 / Probate Case No. 138 of 2014 whereby the intervention application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed an application for grant of Letters of Administration on the basis of Will dated 03.09.2006 whereby Jyoti Lal Bhattacharjee bequeathed his share of land measuring an area of 04 Kathas with old house having an area of 500 sq. ft. appertaining to Khata No. 124, R.S. Plot No. 299 of the society part, Plot No. 101/A Part (corresponding to Co-operative Society Holding No. 1552/D-93), Ward No. 10 (old), 28 (new), situated at old A.G Co-operative Colony, Kadru, P.S-Argora, District-Ranchi under Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is further submitted that the said property was jointly purchased by Jyoti Lal Bhattacharjee and Sujan Kumar Bhattacharya out of their joint funds by virtue of registered sale deed dated 04.03.2006 from the previous owner. Sujan Kumar Bhattacharya being the owner of ½ share, sold the plot measuring an area of 2 Kathas towards northern side with house area of 250 sq. ft., to the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.04.2012 and he came in possession of the same. It is further submitted that when the petitioner came to know about filing of Probate Case No. 138 of 2014 by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, he filed an intervention application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC with a prayer to implead him as an opposite party in the said probate case. However, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 06.07.2019, dismissed the said application. It is further submitted that a general notice ought to have been published for the public providing them an opportunity to raise objections against grant of probate. However, no such procedure was followed and without considering the material facts, the learned Court below dismissed the said application which is quite illegal and against the provisions of law of probate. Hence, on this score alone, the impugned order dated 06.07.2019 is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that as per rule, one can apply for grant of probate after seven days of the death of the testator (or the person who makes the Will and is the owner of the property to be distributed). However, the said probate case was filed after a delay of about thirteen months as the testator died on 13.11.2013 and the petition for grant of probate was filed on 18.12.2014. It is further submitted that several irregularities were committed in filing the said probate case, however, the learned Court below is adamant to grant the Letters of Administration in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
3. Per-contra, Ms. Pinky Tewary, learned AC to AG appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, opposes the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that learned Court below has dismissed the intervention application filed by the petitioner specifically mentioning the questions which he wanted to be decided by the Probate Court, however, the same are beyond the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. It is well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited only to consider the genuineness of the Will.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that the land in question was jointly purchased by Jyoti Lal Bhattacharjee and Sujan Kumar Bhattacharya. Sujan Kumar Bhattacharya sold his share of land to the petitioner whereas Jyoti Lal Bhattachayjee executed a Will of his share of land in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. After the death of the testator, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed Probate Case No. 138 of 2014 for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to the property as per last
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.