High Court Holds Will Must Be Adjudicated In Testamentary Proceedings; Petition For Letters On Intestacy Not Maintainable

A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad heard contested testamentary petitions transferred to the Delhi High Court and considered the narrow question whether a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act seeking Letters of Administration on the footing of intestacy was maintainable after a purported Will had surfaced and a separate petition for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed had been instituted. The court dealt with rival applications filed by the deceased's daughter seeking administration on intestacy and by his son propounding a registered Will dated 07.02.2025.

The High Court held that once proceedings seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were instituted, questions as to the due execution, genuineness and validity of the Will must be adjudicated in those testamentary proceedings and not in parallel intestacy proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the opinion of this Court, once a Petition seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed has been instituted, the question of the due execution, genuineness and validity of the Will must be adjudicated within those proceedings, wherein the testamentary instrument is propounded. The Will cannot be proved or disproved in proceedings instituted on the basis of intestacy, i.e. in a Petition seeking Letters of Administration without the Will annexed." Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the petition framed on the footing of intestacy, which merely asserted that the Will was invalid without seeking declaratory relief in appropriate civil proceedings, could not be entertained where a contemporaneous testamentary petition awaited adjudication. The Court therefore dismissed TEST.CAS.2/2026; it dismissed pending applications in that petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate replies and to press the same grounds in TEST.CAS.4/2026, and recorded that the testamentary petition (TEST.CAS.4/2026) would proceed for proof of the Will and other consequential directions.

Background The dispute arose after the death of Mr. Arvind Singh Mewar on 16.03.2025. He was survived by his wife, two daughters and a son. The petitioner, Padmaja Kumari Parmar, filed TEST.CAS.2/2026 (originally in Bombay) under Section 278 for Letters of Administration on the premise of intestacy and challenged the authenticity and validity of a purported Will dated 07.02.2025, executed about four weeks before death. She alleged that the deceased suffered grave medical and neuropsychiatric illnesses, including severe visual impairment and cognitive decline, and contended the Will was procured by undue influence and lacked testamentary capacity. The son, Shri Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar, filed a rival petition under Section 276 in Rajasthan seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, claiming to be universal legatee; both matters were transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court and were heard together.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on authorities on burden of proof and on the contention that the Will, if void or incapable of taking effect, rendered the estate intestate; counsel for the proponent of the Will relied on the Succession Act's scheme and provisions such as Sections 218, 232, 240, 263, 273 and 276 to submit that testamentary validity must be adjudicated in probate proceedings. The High Court reviewed relevant provisions and precedent, including Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and co-ordinate High Court decisions, and noted that probate and letters of administration with a Will annexed are proceedings in rem and are to be conducted under the statutory scheme. The Court emphasised that summary intestacy proceedings ordinarily determine fitness to administer and that the discovery of a Will ordinarily precluded parallel continuation of an intestacy petition because a grant on intestacy could be revoked under Section 263 if a Will were proved later. The Court recorded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the intestacy petition pending while the testamentary petition proceeded; it observed that the petitioner retained the right to press identical factual objections in the testamentary petition and that the probate court would determine the Will's validity. TEST.CAS.2/2026 was dismissed and TEST.CAS.4/2026 was listed for further proceedings; the Court noted the possibility of appointment of an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 where required.

Case Details: Case No.: TEST.CAS. 2/2026 & TEST.CAS. 4/2026 (with several interlocutory IAs: I.A. 1452/2026, I.A. 1453/2026, I.A. 1959/2026, I.A. 1960/2026, I.A. 1961/2026, I.A. 3941/2026, I.A. 3942/2026) Case Title: In the Matter of: TEST.CAS. 2/2026 — Padmaja Kumari Parmar v. Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar & Ors.; TEST.CAS. 4/2026 — Shri Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Anuradha Dutt and team. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocates, and a team including Mr. C. Rashmikant, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agrawala; additional appearances included Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv., and others. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Date of Judgment: 17th March, 2026