Probate Proceedings Do Not Conclude Title Disputes: Madras High Court Holds Will Execution Must Be Proved Independently Of Prior Settlement Deeds

"The scope of the present testamentary proceedings is confined to the genuineness and due execution of the Will. Questions as to the legal effect of [a prior] Settlement Deed, the title which passed thereunder and whether any subsisting interest remained with the testatrix... cannot be finally adjudicated in the present probate proceedings." Madras High Court, in a ruling dated 09 October 2026, held that a Probate Court’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to determining the genuineness and due execution of a Will and the testamentary capacity of the testator, and it cannot adjudicate upon rival claims of title to property mentioned therein.

A single judge bench of Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed that the existence of a prior registered Settlement Deed or a pending civil suit regarding the ownership of assets does not preclude the court from granting probate if the propounder satisfies the requirements of law regarding the validity of the Will.

The plaintiff, T.K. Suresh Kumar, sought probate of the last Will and Testament of his late mother, K.P. Rajalakshmy, executed in August 2019. The defendant, the plaintiff's younger brother, contested the suit, alleging that the testatrix had already executed a registered Settlement Deed in his favour for the immovable property in 2016 and an earlier Will in his favour. The defendant further argued that the testatrix was not in a sound state of mind at the time of the 2019 Will and that the suit was a counterblast to existing litigation regarding the division of the deceased's fixed deposits.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Will dated 28.08.2019 was true and genuine, and consequently, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of probate. A central legal issue was whether the prior execution of a Settlement Deed and a pending civil decree regarding other assets rendered the subsequent Will invalid or the probate proceedings redundant.

Establishing the Propounder's Burden

The court reiterated that the burden lies upon the propounder of the Will to establish its due execution, attestation, and the testamentary capacity of the testator. In this case, the plaintiff relied on the testimony of the family physician, who acted as an attesting witness. The court noted that the physician's testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination, providing a clear account of the testatrix's mental alertness and the procedural validity of the execution.

Court Finds No Lack of Testamentary Capacity

The court emphasized that the mere advanced age or illness of a testatrix does not negate testamentary capacity if they are shown to be of a sound mind at the precise time of execution. Significantly, the defendant admitted in his testimony that the testatrix was physically and mentally fit on the day the Will was executed. This admission proved fatal to the defendant's plea of lack of mental capacity.

"The defendant's own evidence does not support his plea that the testatrix was incapable of executing a Will on 28.08.2019."

Distinction Between Probate and Title Suits

The court addressed the defendant's reliance on a prior Settlement Deed, ruling that a Probate Court cannot transform into a Title Court. Quoting settled law from the Supreme Court in Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardyal Singh Dhillon and Pasupati Nath Das v. Chanchal Kumar Das, the court held that the question of whether the testatrix had any remaining interest in the property to bequeath after the settlement is a matter for a regular civil suit.

Scope of Probate Proceedings Limited

The court clarified that granting probate validates the Will as an instrument, but does not provide a seal of approval on the title to the assets listed therein. The court noted that the existence of a prior Settlement Deed does not invalidate the subsequent Will in the eyes of a Probate Court, provided the Will's execution is proved.

"The existence of the Settlement Deed, by itself, does not render the subsequent Will unproved."

Treatment of Pending Civil Decrees

Regarding the defendant's argument that other civil proceedings had already divided the assets, the court noted that those judgments do not determine the genuineness of the Will. Consequently, the High Court granted the probate while expressly clarifying that this order would not override or affect the rights of the parties as decided by the civil court in the separate partition suit regarding the fixed deposits.

The court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, confirming the grant of probate for the Will dated 28.08.2019. The court directed the plaintiff to administer the estate of the deceased and file an inventory and statement of accounts within six months, while maintaining the liberty for either party to approach a civil court for any future disputes concerning title or ownership of the underlying properties.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026