Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"In Proceedings Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, the Execution and Validity of a Will Cannot Be Adjudicated", Himachal Pradesh High Court on March 10, 2026 dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order that had only partly allowed an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff. Justice Romesh Verma held that the validity of a Will cannot be adjudicated in substitution proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that all legal heirs of the deceased are necessary and proper parties regardless of what a Will may say.

Smt. Preeto Devi had filed a suit for vacant possession against her own son, Balwinder Singh, before the Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra. During the pendency of the suit, she passed away on October 22, 2024. Her other son, Babhishan Singh, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of himself, his wife Urmila Devi, and two grandsons — Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania — as legal representatives on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the deceased on March 5, 2020. The defendant Balwinder Singh contested the application, stating that the same Will was already under challenge before the very same court in separate proceedings.

The trial court had partly allowed the application, permitting only Babhishan Singh to be brought on record as a legal representative, while rejecting the substitution of Urmila Devi and the two grandsons. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court contending that since the deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of Babhishan Singh and his family, all other sons need not be arrayed as parties.

The High Court rejected this contention and upheld the trial court's order in full.

The Court held that the question of the Will's validity was already under adjudication before the same court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Udey Pathania, and it had to be decided separately by a competent court. Substitution proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC are not the forum to determine whether a Will was validly executed.

"In the proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC, the execution and the validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated."

The Court further held that all sons of the deceased — Babhishan, Balwinder, Surinder, Jagbhushan, and Narinder Singh — are necessary and proper parties to the suit and must be arrayed in the proceedings. The mere fact that Balwinder Singh is already a defendant does not relieve the court of this obligation.

Finding no infirmity in the order of the trial court, the High Court dismissed the petition.

The ruling clarifies an important procedural principle: a party cannot use substitution proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to effectively adjudicate the validity of a Will and secure selective substitution of only those legatees named in a disputed testamentary document. All legal heirs of a deceased party must be brought on record, and the question of who ultimately inherits must be left for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

Date of Decision: March 10, 2026