In a significant decision, the Patna High Court has ruled that probate proceedings cease upon the death of the executor, setting aside a contentious trial court order that allowed a defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff in a case involving an unregistered will. Justice Arun Kumar Jha’s detailed judgment not only reinforced the limits of probate rights but also criticized procedural deviations, ensuring the sanctity of established legal principles.
Background
The matter stemmed from Probate Case No. 8/2012, filed by Ramji Mishra, seeking probate of an unregistered will. Mishra, the executor of the will, named his son, Bipul Kumar, as one of the defendants. Following Mishra’s demise, an application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking substitution of his heirs, including Bipul Kumar, in the position of the plaintiff.
This application was approved by the Additional District Judge-X, Aurangabad, on January 25, 2022. However, the order was challenged in the Patna High Court by petitioner Sanjay Tribedi, represented by advocates Mr. Dineshwar Mishra and Ms. Ruchi Arya. The respondents, including Kanti Devi, were represented by Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary and Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra.
Legal Issues and the High Court’s Observations
1. Probate Rights and Executor’s Role
Justice Jha emphasized the fundamental principle that probate can only be granted to an executor as per Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The judgment underlined:
“The right to obtain probate is confined to the executor and does not devolve upon the executor’s heirs. Upon the executor’s death, probate proceedings come to an end.”
The court cited several precedents, including Rakesh Bihari Sharan v. Alka Sharan (2017), which held that substitution of heirs in probate proceedings is impermissible, and Musammat Phekni v. Musammat Manki (1930), reaffirming that probate rights are exclusive to the executor.
2. Procedural Impropriety
The trial court had allowed the substitution application based on inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. Justice Jha strongly criticized this approach:
“When the law prescribes a specific procedure, inherent powers cannot be invoked to bypass it.”
Highlighting procedural errors, the court noted that the substitution application should have been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. Furthermore, Bipul Kumar, still listed as a defendant, was transposed to plaintiff without formally deleting his name from the array of defendants. The court termed this as a jurisdictional overreach.
3. Inherent Powers Cannot Supersede Statutory Mandates
Justice Jha underscored the limited scope of inherent powers, citing Supreme Court rulings such as Manilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad (1954) and Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati (1965). He observed:
“Inherent powers of the court cannot circumvent mandatory provisions of the law. Such powers are to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where no procedural remedy exists.”
The High Court’s Verdict
After meticulous analysis, the court set aside the trial court’s order, declaring the substitution and transposition of Bipul Kumar as legally untenable. However, Justice Jha clarified that the respondents could explore alternative remedies:
“The dismissal of the substitution application will not bar the respondents from pursuing letters of administration under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.”
Case Deatials
- Petitioner: Sanjay Tribedi (@ Munna Tribedi), represented by Mr. Dineshwar Mishra and Ms. Ruchi Arya.
- Respondents: Kanti Devi and others, represented by Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary and Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra.
- Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 313 of 2022.
