The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Lal Gurda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.530 of 2025
In
TEST CASE No.15 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010460842025
======================================================
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh through the Special Secretary cum Additional
Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
2. The Additional Director General of Police, Home (Police) Unit-2, Police
Headquarters, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
3. The Commandant, 34th Battalion, PAC, Bhullanpur, Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Ram Lal Gurda Son of Late Mukund Lal Gurda Resident of Narayan Chuan
Chand Choura, P.O.- Chand Choura, P.S.- Vishnupad, District- Gaya.
2. Niraj Kumar, Son of Shyam Lal Resident of Suraj Kund, Ander Gaya, P.O.-
Gaya, P.S.- Vishnupad, District- Gaya.
3. Awadh Narayan Singh, Son of Ram Naresh Singh Resident of 07 Manik
Nagar Colony Lahartara, Bauliya, P.O.- Cantt. Varanasi, P.S.- Maduadi,
District- Varanasi, permanent resident of Village- Parshottampur, Pargana
Bhadohi, P.O.- Parsipur, P.S.- Chouri Bazar, District- Sant Ravi Das Nagar,
Bhadohi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Gangesh Gunjan, GP-7
: Mr. Parjat Saurav, AC to GP-7
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
: Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate
: Mr. A.K Thakur, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)
Date : 28-10-2026

Re: I.A. No. 02 of 2025
Heard Mr. Kumar Gangesh Gunjan, learned counsel for
the applicants and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
2/9
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed
by the applicants seeking leave of this Court to contest the present
Letters Patent Appeal, primarily on the ground that they were not
parties to the proceedings in Test Case No. 15 of 2018, which
culminated in the order dated 24.08.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
Testator was unmarried and neither had any siblings nor was his
mother alive at the time of his death. The Testator was diagnosed
with cancer and was undergoing treatment at Popular Hospital,
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, where he died on 25.02.2018. It is further
submitted that prior to his death, the Testator had executed and
registered the Will in question on 23.02.2018, naming three
beneficiaries, who were the applicants in the Test Case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits
that one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will, namely, Pankaj
Kumar Singh, is the son of one of the beneficiaries, namely,
Awadh Narayan Singh. It is contended that the Will was executed
and registered on 23.02.2018 and the Testator died just two days
thereafter, i.e., on 25.02.2018. It is submitted that had the
applicants been impleaded as parties, various discrepancies arising
from the facts of the record, including the timing of the death of
the Testator, could have been brought to the notice of the Court.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
3/9
5. Per contra, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that Section 63 of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925, prescribes the manner of
execution of a Will, which requires the signature or mark of the
Testator and attestation by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prescribes the manner of proof of a
document required by law to be attested, which can be established
by examining at least one attesting witness.
6. It is further submitted that in the present case, A.W.-1,
Pankaj Kumar Singh, stated that the Testator had put his signature
at the bottom of the Will in his presence. He also identified the
original Will and the signature of the Testator on every page
thereof, as well as his own signature on page 9 of the Will, which
were marked as Exhibits 1, 2 (series) and 3, respectively.
7. A.W.-2, Sahdev Yadav, stated that he had drafted the
Will as per the instructions and desire of the Testator. He further
stated that the Testator, after reading and understanding the
contents, executed the Will in his presence and in the presence of
the witnesses, namely, Pankaj Kumar Singh and Shashank Singh,
who also signed the Will in the presence of the Testator.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
4/9
8. A.W.-3, Ram Lal Gurda, stated that the Will was
executed by the Testator on 23.02.2018 and identified the original
Will as well as the signature of the Testator thereon.
9. A.W.-4, Shashank Singh, stated that the Testator had
executed the Will dated 23.02.2018 in his presence and in the
presence of Pankaj Kumar Singh and Sahdev Yadav, after fully
understanding its contents and without any force or coercion. He
further stated that the Testator was in a sound mental condition at
the time of execution of the Will and that the Will was executed at
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore,
submits that the Will in question was executed by the Testator in a
sound state of mind, with full understanding and free consent, and
that the testimonies of A.W.-1, A.W.-2, A.W.-3 and A.W.-4 duly
establish its due execution and attestation.
11. It is a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of
a Probate Court is confined to examining whether the document
propounded as the last Will and testament of the deceased was
duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether, at
the time of its execution, the Testator was in a sound disposing
state of mind. The question as to whether a particular bequest is
good or bad does not fall within the purview of the Probate Court.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
5/9
12. The aforesaid principle has been enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs.
Jasjit Singh and Others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507,
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:
“15. In Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt Kamta
Devi [(1953) 1 SCC 295 : AIR 1954 SC 280] this
Court held that the court of probate is only
concerned with the question as to whether the
document put forward as the last will and testament
of a deceased person was duly executed and attested
in accordance with law and whether at the time of
such execution the testator had sound disposing
mind. The question whether a particular bequest is
good or bad is not within the purview of the probate
court. Therefore the only issue in a probate
proceedings relates to the genuineness and due
execution of the will and the court itself is under
duty to determine it and preserve the original will in
its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained
code insofar as the question of making an
application for probate, grant or refusal of probate
or an appeal carried against the decision of the
probate court. This is clearly manifested in the
fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate
proceedings shall be conducted by the probate court
in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other
ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the will
annexed establishes conclusively as to the
appointment of the executor and the valid execution
of the will. Thus it does no more than establish the
factum of the will and the legal character of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
6/9
executor. Probate court does not decide any question
of title or of the existence of the property itself.
16. The grant of a probate by court of competent
jurisdiction is in the nature of a proceeding in rem.
So long as the order remains in force it is conclusive
as to the due execution and validity of the will unless
it is duly revoked as per law. It binds not only upon
all the parties made before the court but also upon
all other persons in all proceedings arising out of
the will or claims under or connected therewith. The
decision of the probate court, therefore, is the
judgment in rem. The probate granted by the
competent court is conclusive of the validity of the
will until it is revoked and no evidence can be
admitted to impeach it except in a proceeding taken
for revoking the probate. In Sheoparsan Singh v.
Ramnandan Prasad Narayan Singh [ILR (1916) 43
Cal 694 : AIR 1916 PC 78 : 43 IA 91] the Judicial
Committee was to consider whether the will which
had been affirmed by a court of competent
jurisdiction, would not be impugned in a court
exercising original jurisdiction (civil court) in suit
to declare the grant of probate illegal etc. The Privy
Council held that the civil court has no jurisdiction
to impugn the grant of probate by the court of
competent jurisdiction. In that case the subordinate
court of Muzafarbad was held to have had no
jurisdiction to question the validity of the probate
granted by the Calcutta High Court. In Narbheram
Jivram Purohit v. Jevallabh Harjivan [AIR 1933
Bom 469 : 35 BLR 998 : 147 IC 362] probate was
granted by the High Court exercising probate
jurisdiction. A civil suit on the original side was
filed seeking apart from questioning the probate,
also other reliefs. The High Court held that when a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
7/9
probate was granted, it operates upon the whole
estate and establishes the will from the death of the
testator. Probate is conclusive evidence not only of
the factum, but also of the validity of the will and
after the probate has been granted, it is incumbent
of a person who wants to have the will declared null
and void, to have the probate revoked before
proceeding further. That could be done only before
the probate court and not on the original side of the
High Court. When a request was made to transfer
the suit to the probate court, the learned Judge
declined to grant the relief and stayed the
proceeding on the original side. Thus it is conclusive
that the court of probate alone had jurisdiction and
is competent to grant probate to the will annexed to
the petition in the manner prescribed under the
Succession Act. That court alone is competent to
deal with the probate proceedings and to grant or
refuse probate of the annexed will. It should keep the
original will in its custody. The probate thus granted
is conclusive unless it is revoked. It is a judgment in
rem”.
13. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on
record, this Court finds that the jurisdiction of the Probate Court is
confined to determining whether the Will was duly executed and
attested in accordance with law and whether the Testator was in a
sound disposing state of mind at the time of its execution. The
question relating to the validity of any particular bequest or title
over the property does not fall within the domain of the Probate

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
8/9
Court. Therefore, the only issue in Probate proceeding is confined
to the genuineness and due execution of the Will.
14. In the present case, the original Will has been
preserved in the custody of the Court itself. Further, the evidence
of A.W.-1, A.W.-2, A.W.-3 and A.W.-4 establishes the execution
and attestation of the Will in question. The Will has been found to
be a valid and genuine document, and the applicants in Test Case
No. 15 of 2018 have been held entitled to grant of probate on its
basis.
15. This Court further finds that the applicants herein
have failed to demonstrate any legally sustainable ground
warranting grant of leave to contest the present appeal. The
grounds sought to be raised by them do not disclose any infirmity
in the findings recorded in the probate proceedings so as to justify
their intervention in the present matter.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court finds no merit in the present interlocutory application.
17. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 of 2025 stands dismissed.
Re: L.P.A. No. 530 of 2025
18. In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 02 of 2025,
whereby the applicants have been declined leave to contest the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.530 of 2025 dt.28-10-2026
9/9
present Letters Patent Appeal, the appeal itself cannot be
proceeded with.
19.Accordingly, L.P.A. No. 530 of 2025 stands
dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.11.2026
Transmission Date NA