The main legal point established is that the probate court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the genuineness of the will and does not extend to deciding the title to property.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Chapter XXX Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court have been initiated by the plaintiff for grant of letters of administration in respect of estate of deceased Rai Bharat Kumar, which he possessed at the time of his death, along with copy of a will dated 13.11.1998 annexed thereto. As per the averments in the plaint, the deceased has left behind two sons namely Rai Sharwan Kumar (plaintiff petitioner) and Rai Siddhartha Kumar, as well as 05 daughters namely Smt. Sudha Jain, Smt. Seema Bakshi, Smt. Sadhna Agarwal, Smt. Sarita Agarwal and Smt. Subhasini Mohan alias Smt. Subha Mohan, as per their description given in para 4 of the plaint. It is stated that as per the will, 05 daughters were entitled to a sum of Rs.51,000/- each, which have been paid to them by demand draft and accepted by them without protest.

2. Smt. Sudha Jain, the eldest daughter of deceased, has instituted Original Suit No.667 of 2013 (Smt. Sudha Jain Vs. Rai Sharwan Kumar and others), seeking partition of her 1/7th share in the properties of the deceased. According to plaintiff, necessity has arisen for filing the present petition, inasmuch as the will is now being disputed by one of the sisters. The plaintiff has set forth in Annexure-1 to the petition the affidavit of valuation enumerating all properties and credits, which the deceased possessed or was entitled to at the time of his death and which have or are likely to come to the hands of the petitioner.

3. Copy of the will dated 13.11.1998 is annexed. Affidavit of one of the attesting witnesses to the will i.e. Laxmi Chandra Agarwal son of late Mahabir Prasad Agrawal has also been filed certifying that the will was executed by the deceased in the presence of witness, and that the deceased was having a sound mind and memory at the time of execution of will.

4. A written statement has been filed by defendant no.7 objecting to the grant of letters of administration with the will attached. It is denied that alleged will bears signature of deceased, and that the valuation of property is also incorrectly mentioned. It is stated that filing of an Original Suit No.1147 of 2007 by Smt. Sadhna Agrawal is suppressed. It is also contended in para 19 that share of deceased was only 1/8th in the ancestral property but the schedule of property contains description of the entire property. It is contended that share of deceased in the ancestral property is yet to be determined in Original Suit No.667 of 2013, and therefore, letters of administration in respect of entire ancestral property situated in Varanasi cannot be issued.

5. While entertaining this petition and issuing notices, the proceedings of Original Suit No.667 of 2013 pending before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Varanasi has been stayed, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through Lrs. Vs. Jasjit Singh and others, (1993) 2 SCC 507. The order passed on 20.11.2014 upon an application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-

"(On Civil Misc. Application under Section 10 of the C.P.C.) Sri J.N. Nagar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar, submits that the civil court will have no jurisdiction on the original side to go into the question for validity of the Will. In support of his submission, Sri Nagar has placed reliance upon Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka Versus Jasjit Singh and others, (1993) 2 SCC 507. Submission requires consideration.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in Original Suit No. 667 of 2013, Smt. Sudha Jain Versus Rai Sharwan Kumar alias Mantoo and others, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Varanasi, shall remain stayed."

6. An objection has been taken by the respondents to extension of interim order, on the ground that proceedings of earlier instituted suit i.e. Original Suit No.667 of