2007 (10) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Judgment and final order passed by the High Court - Grant of probate - validity of the Will - suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Joint Hindu family properties - HELD THAT - In our view, the High Court as well as the Civil Court have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in dismissing the suit on the aforesaid preliminary issue by holding that after the probate having been granted by the competent probate court and affirmed by this Court, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. We do not find any reason as to how the High Court as well as the civil court could come to a conclusion that after the probate of the Will executed by late S.Kirpal Singh was granted, the suit for declaration for title and injunction on the above allegation could not be said to be maintainable in law. The High Court also while holding that the suit was not maintainable, in view of the probate granted of the Will of late S.Kirpal Singh had relied on a decision of this Court, as noted herein earlier, in the case of Rukmani Devi (supra). We are not in a position to agree with the High Court that this decision could at all be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A plain reading of this decision would not show that after the grant of probate by a competent court, the suit for title and permanent injunction cannot be said to be maintainable in law. What this Court held in that decision is that once a probate is granted by a competent court, it would become conclusive of the validity of the Will itself, but, that cannot be decisive whether the probate court would also decide the title of the testator in the suit properties which, in our view, can only be decided by the civil court on evidence. It is true that the probate of the Will granted by the competent probate court would be admitted into evidence that may be taken into consideration by the civil court while deciding the suit for title but grant of probate cannot be decisive for declaration of title and injunction whether at all the testator had any title to the suit properties or not. Such being the position, we, therefore, hold that the High Court as well as the trial court had acted illegally in dismissing the suit of the appellant on the aforesaid sole ground after framing the preliminary issue. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgments of the High Court as well as of the trial court are set aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The trial court is now directed to decide the suit after framing issues, including the issue of maintainability of the suit after the probate being granted, if not already framed in the meantime and dispose of the same within a year from the date of production of a copy of this order before the trial court. Before parting with this judgment, we may express one more aspect. As noted herein earlier, a suit was dismissed by the trial court which was affirmed by the High Court in revision after framing preliminary issue which we have already noted herein earlier. A question may arise whether the preliminary issue could be raised without deciding the other issues and the suit could be dismissed in view of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of our decision in this matter, we do not feel it proper to dwell on this aspect which is kept open for future consideration. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court post probate granted by competent probate court.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged a judgment affirming the dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The suit involved ancestral properties claimed by the appellant, which were bequeathed in a Will by late S.Kirpal Singh to respondent No.1. The probate of this Will was granted by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appellant filed a civil suit asserting joint Hindu family properties status of the suit properties. The respondent contended that post probate, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. The Civil Court and the High Court dismissed the suit based on this premise. However, the Supreme Court found fault with this reasoning, emphasizing that the probate court's role is limited to validating the Will's execution, not determining property title. The appellant's claims of joint family properties required a trial for evidence evaluation, not solely relying on probate. The Court highlighted that probate conclusively establishes the Will's validity but not the testator's title to the properties in question.

The Court referred to precedents emphasizing the probate court's scope of validating the Will's execution, not deciding property title. The Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts, holding that the Civil Court had erred in dismissing the suit solely based on probate. It directed the trial court to proceed with the suit, framing necessary issues, including maintainability post probate, and to conclude the matter within a year. The Court also noted a procedural aspect regarding the dismissal of the suit based on a preliminary issue, leaving the question open for future consideration. Ultimately, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and decided no costs to be imposed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Civil Court post probate and emphasized the distinction between probate court's validation of Will execution and Civil Court's determination of property title. The judgment underscored the need for a trial to assess evidence regarding property claims, rather than solely relying on probate. The decision overturned the lower courts' dismissal of the suit and directed the trial court to proceed with the case, framing relevant issues for adjudication within a specified timeframe.