The judgment established the nature of probate proceedings as proceedings in rem, the conclusive evidence of the execution and genuineness of the Will granted by a competent Court, and the inapplicability of provisions of Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code to proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

( 1 ) THIS revision is against the order dated 7. 5. 2004 passed by the 5th additional District Judge, (Fast Track) Ratlam in Misc. Civil Case No. 3 of 2003 refusing to reject the application for grant of Letters of administration filed by non-applicant No. 1.

( 2 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 on 25. 1. 1994 applied for grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of Late Noel Brown. She claimed that being sole beneficiary under the Will dated 21. 1. 1975 said to have been executed by Noel brown her late husband, she is entitled exclusively to the bequeathed estate. Learned Court below issued Citation, and in response, present applicant along with her husband (non-applicant No. 2 herein) filed objections and denied the claim of non-applicant No. 1. One of the objections she took that present application out of which this revision arises was not maintainable because non-applicant No. 1 withdrew her earlier application for same relief in respect of same estate on 22. 9. 1986 without liberty to institute fresh proceedings. Subsequent application, therefore, is not maintainable being hit by provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Court below based upon aforesaid objection, framed additional issue Nos. 3 and 4 and by the order impugned answered them against applicant. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for applicant referred to order XXIII, Rule 1 sub-rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Code and submitted that application for Letters of Administration is in the nature of civil suit. In view of provisions contained in section 295 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 provisions of the Civil procedure Code are applicable to such application with full force. He therefore, contended that the Court below erred in law in holding that notwithstanding the earlier compromise leading to withdrawal of earlier application without liberty, subsequent application was maintainable. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/beneficiary supported the order impugned and submitted that no interference is warranted with it.

( 4 ) AFTER having heard and considering rival submissions and contentions urged by learned counsel for parties, I find no merit and substance in this revision.

( 5 ) THE Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short) is a self contained Code insofar as the question of making an application for probate, letters of administration, etc. This is clearly manifest in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. Succession governed by the Act can broadly be divided into intestate and testamentary succession. The testamentary succession is generally made applicable to everyone in India except those who are exempted under the Act. Under Section 213 of the Act, no right as executor or legate can be established in any Court unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted Probate of the Will under which the right is claimed or has granted Letters of administrations with the Will annexed. A probate or letter of administration granted by the competent Court is conclusive evidence of the execution and genuineness of the Will propounded and the rights of executor appointed to represent the estate of testator, unless it is tainted with fraud. The action of Court when it makes a grant is in the nature of proceedings in rem and so long the order remains in force, it is conclusive not only against all parties who may be before the Court but also against all persons whatsoever. A probate Court is a Court of conscience and it does not decide the rights between the parties. A probate Court has to deliver a judgment which should become a judgment in rem. The probate proceedings must take form as nearly as may be of a suit according to provisions of Civil Procedure code. There is no definition of the word "suit" either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the general Clauses Act. In fact, suits of civil nature can only be entertained by Civil Courts