Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court

“The Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Upon Proof And Validity Of A Will”, Allahabad High Court recently held that a probate petition cannot be rejected merely because a separate civil suit challenging the same Will is pending before another court, reiterating that the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the proof and validity of a Will.

On 11 March 2026, the Allahabad High Court allowed a first appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, setting aside the order of the District Judge, Firozabad which had rejected a probate petition solely due to the pendency of a civil suit seeking cancellation of the same Will.

Justice Sandeep Jain restored the probate petition and directed that the civil suit and the probate proceedings be consolidated and decided together within six months, emphasizing that questions regarding the execution, genuineness, and testamentary capacity of the testator can be adjudicated within probate proceedings themselves.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose after Indra Prakash Gupta, owner of the disputed property, allegedly executed a registered Will dated 31.03.2022 in favour of the appellants Amit Gupta and another, which was registered on 01.04.2022. After his death on 12.10.2022, the appellants filed Misc. Probate Petition No. 2 of 2023 before the District Judge, Firozabad seeking grant of probate of the said Will.

Initially, respondent no.1 Dinesh Chandra Gupta did not object to the probate petition. However, later respondents no.1 and 2 filed objections, contending that the testator was suffering from cancer and was not in a fit mental condition to execute the Will, thereby disputing its genuineness.

Subsequently, the contesting respondents instituted Original Suit No.369 of 2025 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad, seeking:

“Cancellation of the alleged Will dated 31.03.2022 on the ground that it was forged and fabricated.”

They further sought partition of the disputed property claiming 1/7th share each, along with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property.

Considering the pendency of this civil suit, the District Judge rejected the probate petition on 21.07.2025, holding that the issue regarding the validity of the Will would be decided in the civil suit.

Aggrieved by this order, the appellants approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Legal Issues Before The Court And Court’s Observations

The High Court examined the scope of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides that when probate proceedings become contentious, they shall take the form of a regular civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court noted that once objections are raised to the grant of probate:

“the proceeding shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit… in which the petitioner for probate shall be the plaintiff and the person opposing the grant shall be the defendant.”

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh (1993) 2 SCC 507, the Court reiterated that the Probate Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the proof and validity of a Will.

The Supreme Court in that case had observed:

“The Probate Court has been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will… The grant of probate is a judgment in rem and conclusive and binds not only the parties but also the entire world.”

Justice Sandeep Jain observed that since the probate petition had been filed earlier in time, the District Judge erred in rejecting it merely because the respondents subsequently filed a civil suit challenging the Will.

The Court further clarified that all objections raised by the respondents—such as lack of testamentary capacity or alleged fabrication of the Will—could be examined within the probate proceedings themselves.

Consolidation Of Probate Proceedings And Civil Suit

While holding that the probate petition was wrongly rejected, the High Court also noted that substantial issues in both proceedings overlapped, particularly regarding the authenticity and validity of the Will.

Referring to Supreme Court decisions in Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh (2005) 12 SCC 503 and Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 505, the Court observed that where probate proceedings and a civil suit concerning the same Will are pending, both matters may be tried together to avoid conflicting findings.

The Court therefore exercised its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and transferred the civil suit from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad to the District Judge, Firozabad, directing that it be consolidated with the pending probate proceedings.

The High Court emphasized:

“All the contentions raised by the contesting respondents regarding the authenticity of the Will could have been decided in the probate petition itself.”

Decision Of The Court

Allowing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court held that the District Judge committed an error in rejecting the probate petition solely due to the pendency of the civil suit.

The Court consequently:

“Set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 and restored Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 to its original number.”

Further directions were issued transferring Original Suit No.369 of 2025 to the District Judge, Firozabad, consolidating it with the probate proceedings, and directing the District Judge to decide both matters together within six months without unnecessary adjournments.

The Court also directed that the records of the lower court be returned forthwith.

The ruling reiterates the exclusive jurisdiction of Probate Courts in determining the validity and proof of a Will, emphasizing that pendency of a separate civil suit challenging the Will cannot be a ground to reject a probate petition. At the same time, the Court balanced procedural efficiency by directing consolidation of related proceedings to prevent conflicting judicial findings and ensure expeditious adjudication.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026