IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/139/2025 WITH PLA/115/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2025 IN THE GOODS OF:

PRABIR CHANDRA SEN, DECEASED -AND-

IN THE MATTER OF:

DHRUBA GHOSH… APPELLANT BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI For the appellant : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh, Adv.

Ms. Ajeyaa Choudhury, Adv.

Mr. Asoke Basu, Adv. Mr. Dipto Ghosh, Adv.

For the appellant : Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Adv.

Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Iram Hassan, Adv.

Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Adv. Ms. Yukta Agarwal, Adv.

Judgment on : 22.09.2025 Arijit Banerjee, J.: -

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 16, 2025, passed in PLA 115 of 2023, being an application filed by the executor named in the last will and testament left behind by Prabir Chandra Sen who passed away on May 2,2020, seeking probate in respect of the said will.

2. The operative portion of the impugned judgement and order reads as follows:-

“21. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold that provisions of Section 283(3) is mandatory in nature and is required to be complied with in the same manner as indicated in Section 283(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in case where this Court is exercising concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300 of the 1925 Act.

22. Thus, the petitioner is directed to comply with the requirements of Section 283(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.”

3. Being aggrieved, the applicant for probate has come up with this appeal.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that while coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 283(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, are mandatory, the learned Single Judge has made various observations about other provisions of law relating to the testamentary jurisdiction of this Court which are erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law.

5. Learned Counsel pointed out that the following observations were made by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and order which have created utter confusion in the testamentary department. No application for probate is being accepted or processed by the department. Such observations are as follows: -

“4. Thus after introduction of 1980 Amendment, this Court except in certain cases where in respect of probate of a Will over which the 1925 Act has no application only exercises the original jurisdiction otherwise it only exercises concurrent jurisdiction vested to it under Section 300 of the 1925 Act and not the jurisdiction originally vested unto in under Clause 34 of Letters Patent, 1865.

5. This Court, therefore, while exercising concurrent jurisdiction is clothed with the powers and limitation of that of a District Judge as under the

1925 Act.

6. In the light of the aforesaid if one looks into the provisions of Section 273 of the 1925 Act it is also clear that this Court while exercising concurrent jurisdiction after the amendment of 1980 to the City Civil Courts Act, 1953 is exercising jurisdiction not as a “High Court” under proviso (a) thereunder but that available to a District Judge under proviso (b) thereof. 1Thus the restrictions imposed to the jurisdiction of the District Judge is also applicable in the case where the High Court is exercising concurrent jurisdiction.

8. To summarize, since a Judge in the Original Side is not exercising the jurisdiction as a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction while exercising concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300 of the 1925 Act, the said Judge cannot grant probate or letters of administration having effect over all properties and assets both movable and immovable constituting the estate thought out the other state irrespective of its value unless otherwise directed by the grant. The probate or letters of administration issued while exercising concurrent jurisdiction over an estate, the value of the property and assets affected by such act is beyond the limits of the Stat