Grandson’s Probate Case Over Grandfather’s Alleged Will Restored, With Validity And Limitation Left For Trial Court

The appellant sought probate of a document dated 21 February 2014, said to have been executed by his grandfather and bequeathing him 11 bighas and 5 biswas.

An earlier registered Will dated 21 October 2013 had bequeathed the land to the appellant’s uncle, respondent No. 1.

After the testator’s death, mutation was entered on the basis of the earlier Will; the appellant pursued revenue proceedings before filing the probate application in 2023.

The trial court allowed respondent No. 1’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the 2014 document was not a Will, but did not decide the limitation objection.

The appellant appealed, and respondent No. 1 cross-objected on limitation.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits rejection only on its specified grounds; the court may examine the pleadings and relied-upon document but should not conduct a mini-trial or finally decide disputed matters requiring evidence.

A document’s testamentary character must be determined from its language and intention, read as a whole; its label alone is not decisive.

A propounder must prove the Will in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925, including Section 63 where applicable.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to probate proceedings, and the relevant inquiry includes when the right to apply accrued, not merely the date of execution or the testator’s death; Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur, (2008) 8 SCC 463, was relied upon.

A limitation objection may be decided at the threshold where the material facts are admitted or unequivocal, but may require further examination where accrual or other material circumstances are disputed.

The 2014 document identified the testator and beneficiary, referred to the earlier Will, and purported to specify the property bequeathed.

Its wording—including that the beneficiary’s rights would commence “from today onwards”—and the discrepancy in the land description could affect its construction and legal efficacy, but did not justify conclusively denying its testamentary character at the threshold.

Whether it satisfied the statutory requirements for a Will remained open for adjudication.

As to limitation, the document’s execution date alone did not determine when the right to apply accrued.

The appellant’s knowledge of the competing Will and his earlier revenue proceedings were relevant circumstances requiring a reasoned assessment; neither delay alone nor the existence of prior proceedings automatically resolved the objection.

The cross-objection seeking rejection on limitation was dismissed, but the limitation issue was left open for independent determination.

The Order VII Rule 11 application was rejected, and the probate proceedings were restored and remitted for adjudication afresh, including determination of the document’s legal character, execution and proof, and the Article 137 objection.

No finding was made on the validity of the alleged Will or the merits of limitation.