Daughter Cannot Claim Mewar Estate Through Intestacy Petition While Disputing Will: Delhi High Court Dismisses Padmaja Kumari Parmar's Petition in Mewar Royal Family Succession Battle

"A Probate Petition blocks a Petition for Letters of Administration — the testamentary court has no discretion at all to prefer one over the other", In a landmark ruling in the high-profile succession dispute over the estate of late Arvind Singh Mewar of the Mewar Royal Estate, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition for Letters of Administration filed on the footing of intestacy by the deceased's daughter, holding that once a Will has surfaced and rival testamentary proceedings seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed are pending, an intestacy petition is simply not maintainable in law. The Court held that the validity of a Will can be adjudicated only in proceedings instituted under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act — not in proceedings instituted under Section 278 which proceed on the premise of intestacy.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, deciding the maintainability objection in TEST.CAS. 2/2026, ruled that the mere assertion that a testamentary instrument is invalid does not render an estate intestate, since intestacy arises only upon the failure to establish a valid testamentary disposition. All contentions regarding suspicious circumstances — including allegations of mental incapacity, near-blindness, Parkinson's disease, dementia and undue influence by the son — were directed to be raised in the rival testamentary proceedings in TEST.CAS.

Background of the Case

Arvind Singh Mewar, the head of the Mewar Royal Estate associated with the City Palace, Udaipur, passed away on 16 March 2025. He was survived by four Class I heirs: his wife Vijayraj Kumari Mewar, his son Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar, and his two daughters Bhargavi Kumari Mewar and Padmaja Kumari Parmar — each entitled to a one-fourth share on intestate succession.

Approximately four weeks before his death, on 7 February 2025, the deceased allegedly executed a registered Will before the Sub-Registrar-I, Udaipur, bequeathing his entire self-acquired movable and immovable estate exclusively to his son Lakshyaraj — making him the universal legatee and disinheriting the wife and both daughters entirely.

On 30 September 2025, the younger daughter Padmaja Kumari Parmar filed a petition before the Bombay High Court under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act seeking Letters of Administration on intestacy. While doing so, she openly acknowledged the existence of the Will dated 7 February 2025 but challenged its validity on multiple grounds. She alleged the deceased was non compos mentis — suffering from Parkinson's disease, dementia, schizophrenia, near-blindness, chronic kidney disease and multiple other ailments — and that the Will had been procured through undue influence and coercion by the son, who had allegedly installed surveillance cameras, restricted access, and controlled all communications of the deceased since 2022.

On 6 December 2025, the son Lakshyaraj filed a rival petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed as its universal legatee. He asserted that the Will was duly registered, prepared by a Senior Advocate after discussions with the deceased in July 2024, read over to the deceased before execution, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. He further claimed that the deceased's family doctor had certified his sound mind prior to execution, and that the deceased had himself requested his daughters to return shares and resign directorships — which they did through gift deeds and resignation letters in late 2024.

On 18 December 2025, the Supreme Court transferred both petitions to the Delhi High Court directing them to be tagged and heard together — numbered TEST.CAS. 2/2026 (daughter's petition) and TEST.CAS. 4/2026 (son's petition). The son raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of TEST.CAS. 2/2026. Arguments were heard and the matter was reserved on 17 February 2026.

Legal Issues

The central question was whether a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act seeking Letters of Administration on intestacy is maintainable when the petitioner herself acknowledges the existence of a Will, challenges its validity, and a rival petition under Section 276 seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed is simultaneously pending.

Court's Observations and Judgment

On the Fundamental Bar: A Probate Petition Blocks a Petition for Letters of Administration

Justice Subramonium Prasad held unequivocally that the statutory scheme of the Indian Succession Act forecloses the continuation of intestacy proceedings once a Will has surfaced and testamentary proceedings for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed are pending. Approving the Bombay High Court's observations in Bindia Kriplani v. Naresh Nathulal Pal, the Court held:

"A Probate Petition blocks a petition for Letters of Administration. On its own the Probate Petition in question would have proceeded departmentally to a grant, since none opposed it. Under no circumstances therefore, until the Testamentary Petition for Probate was disposed of in accordance with law, could the Petition for Letters of Administration have been taken up... The testamentary court has no such discretion at all."

The Court held that once a petition seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed has been instituted, the question of due execution, genuineness and validity of the Will must be adjudicated within those proceedings — not in proceedings instituted on the basis of intestacy. The Will cannot be proved or disproved in Section 278 proceedings.

On the Fundamental Distinction Between Section 276 and Section 278

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the contrasting statutory requirements of Sections 276 and 278. A petition under Section 276 requires the petitioner to aver that the annexed writing is the last Will and testament, that it was duly executed, and to produce the Will itself. In contrast, a petition under Section 278 is confined to establishing the identity and entitlement of the administrator in an intestate estate, entirely without reference to any testamentary instrument:

"Since there is no Will produced in a Petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, there is no question of proving the Will under the said proceedings. The Will can be proved only in a Petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act and not under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act as the requirements of the ingredients applicable under Section 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act are different."

On Intestacy and the Legislative Scheme Under Section 263

The Court drew a powerful analogy from Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, which provides for revocation of Letters of Administration for just cause. Illustration (v) to Section 263 expressly contemplates that Letters of Administration granted on the footing of intestacy must be revoked when a Will is subsequently discovered. The Court reasoned that if even a completed grant on intestacy is liable to be revoked upon proof of a Will, no useful purpose is served by permitting parallel proceedings on intestacy when the Will is already the subject matter of pending testamentary proceedings:

"The mere assertion that a testamentary instrument is invalid does not render the estate intestate, since intestacy arises only upon failure to establish a valid testamentary disposition."

On the Petitioner's Reliance on Priority of Filing

The Court rejected the argument that the daughter's petition, being prior in time, gave her the right to have the Will adjudicated in those proceedings. The Court held that priority in filing confers no such right — the statutory framework mandates that testamentary validity be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 276 with the Will annexed, regardless of which petition was filed earlier.

On the Suspicious Circumstances Alleged

The Court acknowledged the detailed and serious allegations raised by the daughter — the deceased's alleged dementia, Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, near-blindness, restriction of access, surveillance cameras in the bedroom, and disinheritance of the wife and daughters in favour of the son alone. The Court, however, held that all such contentions regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be raised in TEST.CAS. 4/2026 by filing an appropriate reply, where they can receive full adjudication on merits in the contentious testamentary proceedings that must proceed in the form of a regular civil suit under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act.

On the Court's Powers Pending Final Determination

While dismissing TEST.CAS. 2/2026, the Court clarified that it retains full power under Sections 247 and 263 of the Indian Succession Act to appoint an administrator pendente lite for the preservation and management of the estate during the pendency of the testamentary proceedings in TEST.CAS. 4/2026. If the son ultimately fails to prove the Will, the administrator so appointed may continue to manage the estate until appropriate civil proceedings such as a partition suit are filed.

Dismissing TEST.CAS. 2/2026, the Delhi High Court ruled that the daughter's petition for Letters of Administration on intestacy is not maintainable in light of the pending testamentary proceedings instituted by the son. All contentions regarding the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will — including the deceased's alleged mental and physical incapacity and undue influence — are preserved and directed to be raised in TEST.CAS. 4/2026, where the son must propound and prove the Will in contentious proceedings before the Delhi High Court. TEST.CAS. 4/2026 has been listed for further proceedings on 4 May 2026.

The ruling is a significant pronouncement on the architecture of Indian succession law, firmly establishing that the scheme of the Indian Succession Act gives unambiguous precedence to testamentary proceedings over intestacy petitions — and that Indian courts have no discretion to prefer one over the other.

Date of Decision: 17 March 2026