Probate courts are limited to assessing the genuineness of wills and cannot determine issues of property title or rights of intervenors.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 02-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself. However, despite opportunity, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

02. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1st, Civil Court, Danapur in Probate Case No. 111 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has allowed the petition filed by the intervenors/respondents under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and added the intervenors-respondents as a party objector.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have instituted Probate Case no. 111 of 2015 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate of Will dated 15.02.1998 executed by one Most. Laxmi Kuar in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi, applicant no.1-Geeta Sharma, applicant no.2-Smt. Reeta Devi, applicant no.3-Smt. Seeta Singh and Sri Ram Janki Sthan, Katra, Rajghat, Ayodhya (U.P.) through its Mahant. During pendency of the probate case, after lapse of about 8 years, the intervenors/respondents filed an application on 22.03.2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein that they be permitted to intervene in the probate case as they are co-sharers in the property in question under the probate case. In the said petition, it has been stated that the common ancestor of petitioners and respondents was one Kewaldhari Singh and he had two sons, namely, Yamuna Singh, Mathura Singh and one daughter, namely, Laxmi Kuer who died issue-less. The petitoners are the legal heirs of Yamuna Singh whereas the intervenors-respondents are the heirs of Mathura Singh. It has further been stated that since death of Laxmi Kuer, her properties are being used by the petitioners. The respondents further claimed that the petitioners knowingly did not make them party in the probate case in order to grab all the properties in question under probate on the basis of forged Will stated to be executed by Laxmi Kuer bequeathing her entire properties in favour of the heirs of Yamuna Singh, who are petitioners before this Court as well as one Ram Janki Asthan, Ayodhya through its Mahant.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is illegal, bad and without application of mind. Learned trial court has not considered the fact that petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is not maintainable in the probate case filed by the petitioners under Indian Succession Act which is a self sufficient Code. The learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that the probate case is almost in the final stage and at this stage allowing the intervention petition for adding the respondents as parties who are having no locus standi, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court committed error in passing the impugned order holding that the intervenors-respondents might have been entitled to some inheritance if there were no Will in existence. But in the present case, there is a registered Will for which the probate case has been filed. The learned trial court has failed to take note of the fact that the basis of the present probate case is the registered Will executed by the said Late Laxmi Kuer for her self acquired properties and it is the duty of the learned trial court to first examine the will. The learned trial court did not appreciate the fact that the intervenors-respondents have no inheritable interest as they