Allahabad High Court directs consolidation of probate petition and civil suit, restores probate proceeding and transfers suit to District Judge

A single‑judge bench of Justice Sandeep Jain heard an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, challenging the District Judge, Firozabad's rejection of a probate petition. The appeal concerned whether a probate petition seeking grant of probate of a registered Will dated 31.03.2022 could be dismissed merely because a separate civil suit for cancellation of that Will was pending.

The High Court allowed the appeal and held that the probate petition could not have been dismissed solely on the ground of pendency of the civil suit. The Court observed that the probate court had the jurisdiction to decide contested issues relating to the execution and authenticity of the Will and that overlapping proceedings ought to be consolidated and decided together. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is further apparent that since the probate petition was filed by the appellants prior in time to the civil suit No.369 of 2025, as such, the probate petition filed by the appellants could not have been dismissed on the ground that the above civil suit was pending for disposal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad. It is further apparent that all the contentions raised by the contesting respondents regarding the authenticity of the Will could have been decided in the probate petition itself, as such, there was no need for the contesting respondents to file a separate suit for getting the alleged Will of Indra Prakash Gupta cancelled. However, since the suit filed by the contesting respondents is still pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad, as such, it will be appropriate that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) and Nirmala Devi (supra), the suit is consolidated with the probate petition and then both the probate petition and civil suit be decided together in accordance with law after hearing the parties." The Court also quoted precedent noting that "The grant of probate is final subject to appeal, if any, or revocation... It is a judgment in rem and conclusive and binds not only the parties but also the entire world," reflecting the special character of probate orders.

Background
The appellants (Amit Gupta and another) filed Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 seeking probate of a registered Will executed by Indra Prakash Gupta on 31.03.2022 and registered on 01.04.2022; the testator died on 12.10.2022. Contesting respondents Dinesh Chandra Gupta and Dilip Kumar Gupta initially raised no objection but later contested the Will's validity, alleging the testator suffered from cancer and lacked testamentary capacity; they later filed Original Suit No.369 of 2025 seeking cancellation of the registered Will and partition of the disputed property. The District Judge rejected the probate petition on 21.07.2025 on the ground that the civil suit raising the same issue was pending. The appellants appealed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act.

The High Court examined Section 295 of the Succession Act, which prescribed that contentious probate proceedings shall "take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit" and considered Apex Court authorities including Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh (1993) and the decisions in Balbir Singh Wasu and Nirmala Devi which sanctioned clubbing probate proceedings with civil suits where issues overlapped. The Court found that, because the probate petition had been filed earlier in time and the authenticity and execution of the Will could have been and ought to have been determined in the probate proceeding itself, the lower court erred in dismissing the probate petition merely on account of the subsequent civil suit. The Court set aside the impugned order, restored Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 to its original number, and, exercising powers under Section 24 CPC, transferred Original Suit No.369 of 2025 from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad to the District Judge, Firozabad to be consolidated and decided together with the probate petition. The District Judge was directed to decide both matters within six months after service of certified copy of the order, without unnecessary adjournments. The record of the lower court was ordered to be returned forthwith.

Case Details:
Case No.: First Appeal No. 683 of 2025
Case Title: Amit Gupta And Another Versus Dinesh Chandra Gupta And 6 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Rishabh Agarwal (Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Abhishek Agarwal (Counsel); Arvind Agrawal (Counsel)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 54