Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the civil suit for partition and other reliefs, holding that “nothing further survives in the present suit” after probate of the Will dated 11.12.2004 was granted in a connected testamentary case. All pending applications were disposed of, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Facts
- The original plaintiff (daughter of the deceased) filed the suit claiming that the deceased, who passed away on 18.03.2014, died intestate and sought:
- Partition of movable and immovable properties
- Declaration that two Wills (dated 11.12.2004 and 13.09.2013) were forged
- Rendition of accounts
- Mesne profits
- Mandatory injunction to restore and transmit shares to legal heirs
- The plaintiff claimed a 1/5th share in the estate, alleging all legal heirs were entitled to equal shares as the deceased had not executed a valid Will.
- Defendant No. 1 (son of the deceased) initially propounded a Will dated 13.09.2013, while Defendant No. 2 (wife of the deceased) propounded another Will dated 11.12.2004.
- Over time:
- Defendant No. 1 withdrew his claim regarding the 2013 Will and acknowledged the 2004 Will through a family settlement.
- The original plaintiff (daughter) also withdrew her challenge to the 2004 Will after settling disputes with Defendant No. 2 via a Memorandum of Oral Family Settlement dated 09.08.2021 and was removed from the suit.
- Consequently, only one objector remained—Plaintiff No. 2 (another daughter)—challenging the 2004 Will.
Issues
- Whether the deceased died intestate or left behind a valid Will dated 11.12.2004.
- Whether the civil suit for partition and mesne profits could be maintained in light of the pending testamentary proceedings.
- Whether any claim survives after the grant of probate of the Will.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The plaintiff claimed equal inheritance rights, asserting that the deceased died intestate.
- Alleged that both Wills were forged and void.
- Sought partition of properties and accounting of profits gained from the estate by other family members.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Defendant No. 2 (wife of the deceased) asserted that the deceased had executed a valid Will dated 11.12.2004 bequeathing the entire estate to her.
- Defendant No. 1 (son) withdrew his objection and supported the 2004 Will through an oral family settlement.
- The respondents contended that once probate of the 2004 Will was granted, the suit for partition became infructuous.
Analysis of the Law
- The suit was filed under civil jurisdiction for partition and declaration but was intrinsically linked to the testamentary dispute concerning the validity of the Will.
- Upon settlement of objections and grant of probate, the testamentary jurisdiction prevailed over civil claims.
- The Probate Court’s finding rendered the civil reliefs redundant.
Precedent Analysis
- Though no specific precedents were cited in the judgment, the Court’s reasoning aligns with established principles that once probate is granted under the Indian Succession Act, the Will is deemed valid and binding.
- Civil courts are generally bound by the outcome of testamentary proceedings unless fraud or lack of jurisdiction is established.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court noted that all legal heirs, except Plaintiff No. 2, had either accepted the 2004 Will or settled disputes through family arrangements.
- Plaintiff No. 2 was the sole remaining challenger in both the civil suit and the testamentary case.
- A separate judgment delivered on the same day in TEST.CAS. 54/2014 dismissed Plaintiff No. 2’s objections and granted probate of the 2004 Will.
- As a result, the estate was validly bequeathed to Defendant No. 2, and no share accrued to Plaintiff No. 2 under intestate succession laws.
- The Court concluded: “In view of the above, nothing further survives in the present suit.”
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the civil suit for partition, declaration, mesne profits, and other reliefs as infructuous following the grant of probate of the Will dated 11.12.2004. A decree sheet was ordered to be drawn accordingly. All parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Implications
- The ruling underscores the principle that civil claims based on intestate succession cannot survive once a valid Will is judicially upheld and probated.
- It reinforces the binding effect of probate proceedings on parallel civil suits involving the same estate.
- The judgment also illustrates the judicial recognition of family settlements in resolving inheritance disputes.