Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • provision of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act.
  • provisions of Rule 14 of Order VII of the CPC.
  • Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act
  • Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act
  • provisions of the Indian Succession Act
  • sub-section (2) of Section 294,
  • Indian Succession Act
  • Rule 14 of Order VII
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • provision of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act.
  • provisions of Rule 14 of Order VII of the CPC.
  • Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act
  • Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act
  • provisions of the Indian Succession Act
  • sub-section (2) of Section 294,
  • Indian Succession Act
  • Rule 14 of Order VII
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a petition before the District Judge, Gaya, seeking the grant of probate of an unregistered will dated 5th February 1970 executed by Sukha Kuer in his favour. The executrix was the petitioner’s maternal grandmother. General and special citations were issued to the heirs and legal representatives of the executrix. Opposite Party No. 1 entered appearance in response. Initially, the District Judge converted the probate proceeding into a regular title suit by order dated 16-4-1973. Subsequently, on the petitioner’s objection that the probate case could not be converted into a title suit without a caveat being filed by the objector, and that contentions raised could not be disposed of in a summary proceeding, the District Judge recalled the earlier order by an order dated 19-1-1974. The objector, without filing a caveat, applied for a copy of the will. The petitioner objected to this, but the District Judge granted the copy. The petitioner challenged this order in the present revision application.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a probate Court can grant a copy of a will to an objector solely on the basis of the objector entering appearance in the proceeding without filing a caveat.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Civil Court Rules. Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act indicates that probate proceedings should not take the form of a regular suit unless there is contention. Mere appearance or caveat does not automatically convert the proceeding into a contentious suit. Section 276 requires the will to be annexed to the probate application, and Section 294 imposes a duty on the probate court to preserve original wills. Sub-section (2) of Section 294 mandates state regulations for preservation and inspection of wills.

The Civil Court Rules, specifically Rule 355, entitle a defendant who has appeared in a suit to obtain copies of exhibited documents admitted as evidence, with an exception noted for documents produced with the plaint or under Order XIII of the CPC. The will in question was not exhibited as evidence because the proceeding was not converted into a regular suit due to absence of a caveat and contention.

The court concluded that the objector was not entitled to a certified copy of the will merely by entering appearance. Only upon filing a caveat and the probate court deciding to convert the proceeding into a regular title suit would the objector (as defendant) be entitled to a copy under Rule 14 of Order VII of the CPC and Rule 355 of the Civil Court Rules.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the learned District Judge granting the copy of the will to the objector.

The direct effect is that an objector cannot obtain a copy of the will merely by entering appearance without filing a caveat and triggering a conversion of the probate proceeding into a regular suit. No costs were ordered. The opinion does not establish any new precedent beyond clarifying the procedural entitlement to copies in probate proceedings.

    Bindeshwari Pandey v. Kari Devi And Others Opposite Parties.

    1. The only question falling for my consideration in this revision application by the petitioner is, whether a probate Court can grant copy of a will to an objector on his merely entering appearance in the proceeding.

    2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner has filed a petition before the District Judge, Gaya, for grant of probate of an unregistered will dated the 5th February, 1970, executed by one Sukha Kuer in his favour. The executrix was his maternal grand-mother. General as well as special citation was issued to the heirs and legal representatives of the executrix, in response whereof Opposite Party No. 1 entered appearance. On her mere appearance, the learned District Judge had earlier passed an order on 16-4-1973 for converting the proceeding into a regular title suit. Later on, on the objection of the petitioner that the probate case could not be converted into a title suit unless a caveat was filed by opposite party No. 1 and the contentions raised by her could not be disposed of in this summary proceeding, the learned District Judge by his order dated 19-1-1974 seems to have recalled the earlier order dated 16-4-1973 converting the proceeding into a title suit. There is a clear indication in Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act that in any case in which there is contention, the proceeding shall take as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit. It is well settled that mere entering a caveat will not necessarily make it a contentious proceeding.

    3. The objector, however, without filing a caveat applied for grant of a copy of the will in question. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner to the grant of the copy. The learned District Judge, however, overruling the objection of the petitioner has ordered for the grant of a copy of the will. The petitioner is challenging the said order.

    4. In this connection it will be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Indian Succession Act and also to the Rules framed by this Court, which are known as ‘Civil Court Rules’, for its guidance. Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act provides that application for probate or for letter of administration has to be made by annexing the will itself. Section 294 of the Act enjoins a duty upon the probate Court to preserve all original wills, of which probate or letters of administration with the will annexed may be granted by him. Under sub-section (2) of Section 294, the State Government has to make regulations for the preservation and inspection of the wills so filed. Under Chapter VI of Part III of the Civil Court Rules also, various rules have been framed relating to the custody and preservation of wills which indicate that a will has been treated a very valuable document. Rule 355 which falls under Chapter I of Part IV of the Civil Court Rules dealing with rules relating to information, copies and Copying Department, provides that a defendant who has appeared in the suit is entitled at any stage to obtain copies of the record of the suit including exhibits which have been put in and finally accepted by the Court as evidence. Note 2 of this rule, however, makes it permissible for the grant of copies of documents which are produced along with the plaint or under Order XIII of the CPC. Reading Rule 355, therefore, it is apparent that party to a suit is not entitled to take copies of unexhibited documents, the only exception being the documents mentioned in Note 2, as contemplated under Rule 14 of Order VII of the Code.

    5. I have already referred to the provision of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act. By virtue of the said provision, unless and until there is any contention in a probate case, it has not to partake the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, although the proceeds” is to the regulated, as far as the circumstances of the case may permit, as indicated-in Section 268 of the Act, by the Code of Civil Procedure.

    6. Considering, therefore, the entire scheme of the Indian Succession Act and the rules framed by this Court with respect to the grant of copies of documents, I am inclined to take the view that the objector was not entitled to take a certified copy of the will in question until and unless he filed a caveat and the probate Court on examining the objection decided to convert the proceeding into a regular title suit.

    7. On happening of that event, the application for the grant of probate has to be deemed to be as a plaint and the petitioner a plaintiff. The will which is filed along with the application for grant of probate, will then be covered by the provisions of Rule 14 of Order VII of the CPC. The will being a document annexed with the petition for grant of probate, which is converted into a title suit, the objector (defendant) will then be entitled to grant of a copy thereof by virtue of Note 2 to Rule 355 under Chapter I of Part IV of the Civil Court Rules, as already discussed above.

    8. For the foregoing reasons, I will allow this application and set aside the order of the learned District Judge. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.

    9. Application allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Bindeshwari Pandey v. Kari Devi And Others Opposite Parties.
    (Jul 8, 1975)