Common-estate partition suits may be heard alongside testamentary proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Applicant and Respondent No. 1 are siblings disputing their deceased father’s estate.

The Applicant’s partition suit, originally filed in the Bombay High Court, was transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court following a change in pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as Suit No. 6934 of 2024.

Both siblings also pursued testamentary proceedings in the High Court concerning the father’s Will; the proceedings became contested.

The partition suit and testamentary proceedings concerned substantially overlapping properties, although the parties disputed the identity or ownership of one flat.

No issues had been framed and evidence had not commenced in any of the three proceedings.

1. Whether the partition suit should be transferred from the Bombay City Civil Court to the High Court under Section 24 CPC for hearing with the parties’ testamentary proceedings.

2. Whether the overlap in the properties and issues across the proceedings made transfer appropriate to avoid duplicated evidence or inconsistent findings.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where doing so serves the ends of justice.

In Shamita Singha v. Rashmi Ahluwalia, (2020) 7 SCC 152, the Supreme Court recognised that where testamentary proceedings may directly affect a partition suit concerning substantially common assets, transferring the suit for coordinated hearing may be expedient to avoid inconsistent findings; the “first past the post” principle does not control such a transfer.

The Court also considered Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659, in relation to the need for a reasoned exercise of transfer discretion.

The Court found that three of the four properties identified across the proceedings were common, while the fourth concerned a flat whose precise identity or ownership was disputed.

The testamentary proceedings could affect which assets formed part of the estate available for partition and the parties’ respective shares.

Because all proceedings were at an early stage, coordinated adjudication could avoid duplication of evidence and the risk of inconsistent findings.

Applying Shamita Singha, the Court held that transfer would serve the interests of justice; it distinguished the authorities relied on by Respondent No. 1 as addressing different circumstances or issues.

It transferred Suit No. 6934 of 2024 from the Bombay City Civil Court to the High Court and ordered it to be heard with Testamentary Petition Nos. 2647 of 2024 and 5014 of 2024.