Case: Smt. Rukmani Devi and Others Vs. Narendra Lal Gupta

attack in different proceedings. It is well-settled that the decision of the probate court is a judgment in rem. The High Court rightly held that till the order granting probate remains in force it is conclusive as to the execution and validity of the will till the grant of probate is revoked. Apart from the fact that a decision of the probate court world be a judgment in rem not only binding on the parties to the probate proceedings but it will be binding on the whole world. Therefore, a solemn duty is cast on the probate court. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a final judgment or order of a competent court in the exercise of probate jurisdiction is conclusive proof of what is decided therein that is about the genuineness of the will. To be precise, a probate granted by a competent court is conclusive of the validity of such will until it is revoked and no evidence can be admitted to impeach it except in a proceeding taken for revoking the probate. Apart from anything else, the citation having been issued to the appellants and having been served upon them, their failure to enter a caveat to contest the proceedings would preclude them from contesting the validity of the will in other proceedings. In Surinder Kumar v. Gian Chand (1958 SCR 548 : AIR 1957 SC 875 : 1958 SCJ 159 ) this Court allowed an application for admission of additional evidence to place the probate of the will on record. The Court after allowing the application held that since will has been admitted to probate any infirmity in the matter of probate of the will due to the want of proper attestation of the will as required by Section 63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act would be removed because the order admitting the will to the probate will operate as a judgment in rem. Therefore the High Court was perfectly justified in reversing the decision of the executing Court directing the respondent to lead evidence to prove the genuineness of the will.3. Mr T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned counsel, who appeared for the appellants contended that the learned Fifth Additional Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for grant of probate. Developing this contention, he first pointed that Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act confers jurisdiction on the District Judge to grant probate upon a petition moved before him if at the time of his death, the testator had a fixed place of abode or any property, moveable or immovable, within the jurisdiction of the court. He conceded that deceased Ram Dulari was staying at Mesra as found by the High Court for over 20 years. Therefore Section 270 would be attracted and an application could be made to the court which granted the probate for admitting the will of the deceased to probate. He then referred to the proviso to Section 273 and urged that where the property of the deceased is situated in more than one State, the District Judge in whose jurisdiction the deceased had a fixed place of abode would be entitled to grant probate provided he certifies that the value of the property and estate affected beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs 10, 000. It was then pointed out that in this case the probate is granted by the court at Ranchi in the State of Bihar while the property in respect of which execution is taken out is situated at Katni in the State of Madhya Pradesh and its value exceeds Rs. 10, 000 and therefore the Court of the Fifth Additional Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi had no jurisdiction to grant the probate. It was urged that even if the appellants did not enter a caveat and did not contest the proceedings for grant of probate yet the same having been granted by a court having no jurisdiction, the grant would be invalid and would confer no title on the respondent. Proceeding along it was submitted that if the grant of probate is ab initio void it would be open to the appellants to contest the genuineness of the will when the same is set up in the execution proceedings.4. There is no merit in either of the two submissions. Deceased Ram Dulari was staying with her son, the respondent at Mesra, a place within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Fifth Additional Judicial Commissioner for over 20 years before her death, and therefore the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application as provided by Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act. Now the question is whether the property situated at Katni exceeds Rs. 10, 000 in value. The jurisdiction would depend upon the value of the property in a State other than the State in which the deceased died. If the jurisdiction depends upon a disputed question of fact such as value of the property, it was necessary for the appellants to enter caveat and contest the jurisdiction of the Court urging that the Court had no jurisdiction because the grant would affect a property in another State exceeding Rs. 10, 000 in value. That having not been done it is not open to the appellants to raise the controversy in the present proceedings. Once the grant is made, Section 273 provides that the grant shall have effect over all the property and estate, movable or immovable of the deceased throughout the State and unless otherwise directed the grant has like effect throughout the other States provided the two contingencies set out in the proviso are satisfied. In this case, the court granting the probate was satisfied in the absence of contest that the value of the property affected by the grant and situated beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs. 10, 000 in value. The point is therefore concluded against the appellants and they cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]4. There is no merit in either of the two submissions. Deceased Ram Dulari was staying with her son, the respondent at Mesra, a place within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Fifth Additional Judicial Commissioner for over 20 years before her death, and therefore the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application as provided by Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act. Nowthe question is whether the property situated at Katni exceeds Rs. 10, 000 invalue. The jurisdiction would depend upon the value of the property in a State other than the State in which the deceased died. If the jurisdiction depends upon a disputed question of fact such as value of the property, it was necessary for the appellants to enter caveat and contest the jurisdiction of the Court urging that the Court had no jurisdiction because the grant would affect a property in another State exceeding Rs. 10, 000 in value. That having not been done it is not open to the appellants to raise the controversy in the present proceedings. Once the grant is made, Section 273 provides that the grant shall have effect over all the property and estate, movable or immovable of the deceased throughout the State and unless otherwise directed the grant has like effect throughout the other States provided the two contingencies set out in the proviso are satisfied. In this case, the court granting the probate was satisfied in the absence of contest that the value of the property affected by the grant and situated beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs. 10, 000 in value. The point is therefore concluded against the appellants and they cannot be permitted to