District Delegate Lacks Jurisdiction to Revoke Probate; Exclusive Authority Vests in District Judge for Contentious Proceedings

In brief

The question

1. Whether a District Delegate has the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for the revocation of a probate granted by it

The court held

The Court answered that the District Delegate has no jurisdiction to revoke probate; such power rests solely with the District Judge

It also directed

The High Court set aside the District Judge’s order dated 16th December 2021 as erroneous and contrary to law, directed the District Judge to adjudicate the revocation application on its merits and to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible

The appeal (FAT 15 of 2026) and the application for condonation of delay (CAN 1 of 2026) were allowed

01Facts

The appellants sought the revocation of a probate previously granted by a District Delegate in 1989 regarding a non-contentious proceeding

p. 2 · ¶ 1

They filed a revocation application (Misc. Judicial Case No. 15 of 2020) before the District Judge at Coochbehar, claiming they were unaware of the original probate proceedings and thus could not object at that time

p. 4 · ¶ 15

On 16th December 2021, the District Judge returned the application, ruling that the proper forum for revocation was the District Delegate (the Additional District Judge) who originally granted the probate

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The appellants challenged this order, arguing that once revocation is sought, the matter becomes "contentious," stripping the District Delegate of jurisdiction

p. 2 · ¶ 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether a District Delegate has the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for the revocation of a probate granted by it

p. 3 · ¶ 10

ii.2. Whether the District Judge is the appropriate forum to decide contentious issues relating to the revocation of probate

p. 2 · ¶ 5 · p. 5 · ¶ 25

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 264(1) of the Succession Act, 1925, which vests the District Judge with the jurisdiction to grant and revoke probates in all cases

p. 3 · ¶ 11

Section 265 limits the District Delegate’s authority to granting probate only in "non-contentious" cases

p. 3 · ¶ 12-13

Under Section 288, if a case becomes contentious, the Delegate must return the application for presentation before the District Judge

p. 5 · ¶ 20

The court relied on Kailash Chandra v. Nanda Kumar (AIR 1944 Cal 385), establishing that revocation applications are contentious by nature and Mrs. Sara Moiz Khyrullah v. Sri Dilip Kumar Singh (2016 1 CalHCN 16), which clarified that the power to revoke is not conferred upon District Delegates

p. 3 · ¶ 5, 8 · p. 4 · ¶ 17 · p. 5 · ¶ 21

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 263 Section 264 Section 265 Section 286 Section 288

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while a District Delegate may grant probate in an initial non-contentious stage, they lack the legal mandate to handle "contentious" matters

p. 3 · ¶ 14

An application for revocation is inherently contentious because it challenges the validity of a grant; therefore, treating it as within the Delegate's jurisdiction would lead to the "anomalous result" of a Delegate pronouncing a will spurious—an act they are expressly barred from doing in a grant proceeding under Section 286

p. 4 · ¶ 18-19

The Court noted that what cannot be done directly (deciding a contested grant) cannot be done indirectly (deciding a revocation)

p. 4 · ¶ 19

Consequently, even if the Delegate issued the original grant, only the District Judge holds the statutory authority to adjudicate the revocation

p. 5 · ¶ 22, 25