Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 21717
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J
Dipali Sarma – Appellant
Versus
Pranjit Shandilya – Respondent
Test.Cas./2/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G Jalan, S Baishya, C Bora, Angshuman Deka, S P Das
The jurisdiction of a Probate Court is limited to establishing the factum of the Will, its valid execution, and the legal character of the executor; it cannot adjudicate upon the title, ownership, or nature of the properties involved.
Headnote:The appellants sought modification of a probate order under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The testator executed a Will dated 20/11/2019 bequeathing all movable and immovable properties to his wife and daughters, specifically excluding his son. While the District Judge granted probate, the court observed that the relief was confined only to the 'self-acquired properties' of the testator and excluded ancestral properties. The appellants challenged this limitation as being beyond the jurisdiction of a probate court. The central issue was whether a probate court has the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property (self-acquired vs. ancestral) or the title of the testator while granting probate. Relying on the principle that a probate court is only concerned with the genuineness of the Will and the legal character of the executor, the court reasoned that the probate jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating titles or the existence of the property itself. With the above directions, the appeal stands allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the probate petition and the lower court's limitation of the will to self-acquired property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contention that probate courts lack jurisdiction to decide property titles or nature. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. limited scope of probate courts to verify genuineness and execution only. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. setting aside the limitation on property nature and allowing the appeal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The instant appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order 41 of the CPC, has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and order dated 20.12.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Udalguri in Misc. (Probate) Case No. 01/2023.
3. The appellants herein are the wife and daughters of the deceased, testator, late Bimal Prasad Sharma.
4. The facts leading to the of the filing of this present appeal is that the late Bimal Prasad Sharma, the testator, had executed a Will on 20/11/2019 by which it was stated that after his death his only son/respondent and his heirs will not be entitled to the property mentioned in his Will in any way, and they will not have any claim whatsoever to the property. It was also mentioned that his two daughters and his wife shall be the heirs and owners of all his property, and they may gift, donate, sell, etc., and transfer to their sons and grandsons so that they can enjoy the possession forever. The full contents of the Will dated 20/11/2019 is reproduced here below:-
“ TRANSSLATION TYPE COPY
WILL
Whereas, Shri. Bimal Prasad Sharma, aged about 68 years, father of late Kirti Prasad Sharma, Village: Kalaigaon Town (Gerua), Post & Police Station: Kalalgaon, Mouza: Shilpota, District: Udalguri, BTAD (Assam).
By this will I bequeathed to my daughters Smti. Ankita Goswami and Smti. Santana Sharma and my wife Smti. Dipali Sharma all the movable and immovable properties in my own name and possession. After my death, my only son Shri Pranjit Shandalya and his heirs are not entitled to the property mentioned in this will in any way and they will not have any claim whatsoever to this property. My two daughters and my wife shall be the heirs and owners of all my property and they may gift, donate, sale, etc., & transfer to their sons and grandsons forever so that they can enjoy the possession forever. No one else shall object here and any objection shall be rejected and unacceptable. This is the last and first and only will of my life. After my death, if my son claims my movable and immovable property even during the probate of my will, It will be rejected and unacceptable.
With a sound health, my own will, free mind and without any coercion, today date: 20.11.2019 I executed the will in presence of the witnesses as mentioned below.
Sd/- Shri Bimal Prasad Sarma
Signature of the testator of the Will
Date : 20.11.2019”
5. The testator has since expired on 24/1/2023. Thereafter, the appellants herein approached the Court of District Judge, Udalguri, by filing the Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, praying for grant of probate certificate to the appellants/petitioners. The respondent herein was also a party in the probate proceeding and he contested the case. The said Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, was disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 20/12/2025. While disposing of the said Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, the learned Court below allowed the petition and granted the probate certificate. However, the learned Court below made an observation saying that- “in respect of issue of relief, i.e. Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief/relief (s) as prayed for? It’s an unrebutted fact that the opposite party was the only son of the testator. He has been ostracized as he married to a girl of lower case out of his love affairs. In the ‘Will’ it has been mentioned that his entire properties will be bequeath to his wife and two daughters only. Thus, in my interpretation, the ent
