SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 442

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. ARUN KUMAR JHA, J
Ashutosh Kumar Mishra @ Ashutosh Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Bimla Devi – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.887 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs.Anju Kumari @ Anju Narain
For the Respondents:Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate, Mr. Ritik Shah, Advocate, Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Sawan Suman, Advocate

Appeals from orders of District Judge delegates under the Indian Succession Act must be directed to the High Court, not the District Judge, confirming the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 265, 264, 299, and 263 - Probate/Letters of Administration - Challenge to maintainability of appeal - Court finds that orders made by a District Judge delegate are subject to appeal before the High Court under Section 299, establishing that an appeal from a District Judge delegate cannot proceed to the District Judge directly. (Paras 2, 28, 32)

(B) Appeal - Jurisdiction - Court clarifies that the learned Additional District Judge acted without jurisdiction in upholding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondents. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order regarding the maintainability of an appeal in a probate matter involving a will executed by the petitioner's sister. After the initial grant of probate, the respondents filed for revocation citing an alleged omission of heirs. The learned Sub Judge upheld the will's legitimacy, and the respondents sought appeal before an Additional District Judge, asserting erroneous jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that appeals from orders of District Judge delegates are appealable exclusively to itself, through Section 299 of the Act, thereby invalidating the impugned order of the Additional District Judge.

Issues: The core issue addressed was whether an appeal against a District Delegate's order could be directed to the District Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the legislative framework clearly delineates that actions taken under the delegated authority of a District Judge must be appealed to the High Court, upholding legal consistency across similar cases and hierarchical structures.

Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of probate/letters of administration case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on maintainability of appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. provisions on jurisdiction and appeals. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. judicial review on contested appeals. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. interpretation of statutory provisions. (Para 14 , 15)
6. importance of appointed delegate's authority. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. final directives and orders of the court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

Date : 10-04-2025

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Misc. Appeal No. 01/2017 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 31.01.2018 filed by the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that the petitioner filed Probate/Letters of Administration Case No. 76/2006 in the court of learned Sub Judge-1, Ara. In the said case, the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner, namely Udho Mishra had two sons, namely Adityadeo Mishra and Ashutosh Kumar Mishra (the petitioner herein) and one daughter, namely Madhuri Mishra. The daughter of Udho Mishra was married with one Satish Kumar Tripathi, who was the only son of his father, namely Tirth Raj Tripathi. Satish Kumar Tripathi died issue-less in 1979 and from the side of her husband, Madhuri Mishra had no legal heir. The said sister of the petitioner executed a registered Will on 10.10.2006 in respect of all her properties in favour of the petitioner. The testatrix died on 10.11.2006 and Shradh etc. was performed by the petitioner. The only near relatives of the testatrix were the brother Adityadeo Mishra and the father Udho Mishra. After the death of the testatrix, the petitioner came into possession of all her properties. Thereafter, a prayer was made for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Madhuri Mishra. Subsequently, certain amendments were made with regard to the details of the properties which could not be mentioned earlier, which were allowed. The near relatives of the testatrix, namely Udho Mishra and Adityadeo Mishra filed their written statement stating that the registered Will in favour of the petitioner was genuine and valid and they had no objection to the grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner. After consideration of all aspects of the matter, the learned Sub Judge-1, Bhojpur at Ara granted Probate Certificate in respect of the said Will in favour of the petitioner under Section 289 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. Further case of the petitioner is that after grant of Probate, its preparation and sealing and signing on 23.07.2010/13.08.2010, the respondents herein filed Revocation Case No.10 of 2013 in the court of learned Sub Judge-1, Bhojpur at Ara for revocation of the Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 10.10.2006 in favour of the petitioner. The revocation petition was filed with allegation that the father-in-law of testatrix Madhuri Mishra had two daughters as well and this fact was suppressed when the Letters of Administration Case No. 76/2006 was filed. The respondents further stated that they learnt about grant of Probate only in May, 2013, got the certified copy of the order dated 29.05.2013 and filed Revocation Case No. 10/2013 on 01.06.2013. The petitioner contested the claim of the respondents. The learned Sub Judge-1, Bhojpur at Ara, after detailed hearing, dismissed the revocation case vide order dated 09.12.2016. Thereafter, a Misc. Appeal No. 01/2017 was filed by the respondents against the petitioner in which a notice from the court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara was received by the petitioner. The petitioner made his appearance in the said Misc. Appeal No. 01/2017 and filed a petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top