Madras HC Shifts Relatives’ Will Dispute From Virudhunagar Additional District Court To Principal District Court

The petitioner sought probate of a Will dated 27 September 2019, initially before the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

On an earlier transfer petition, the probate proceeding was transferred to the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar, and numbered as Probate O.P. No. 1 of 2023.

After the respondents contested the grant of probate, the petitioner sought conversion of the proceeding into a Testamentary Original Suit (T.O.S.).

The trial court converted it into an unnumbered T.O.S. in 2026 while a revision petition was pending.

The petitioner then sought transfer, alleging delay and apprehended bias.

The trial judge’s report denied partiality or unwarranted remarks but stated that there was no objection to transfer.

The third respondent also raised no objection to transfer to the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar.

The petition invoked Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to withdraw and transfer proceedings within its jurisdiction.

The petitioner relied on State of W.B. v. Shivananda Pathak, (1998) 5 SCC 513; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611; and Anila Shashikant Bhai Kothari v. Nipun Navnit Mehta, C.R.P.(PD) No. 4388 of 2024 (Madras High Court, 22 January 2025).

The judgment does not separately set out or elaborate the rules derived from those authorities; it records that they were considered.

The Court considered the transfer request in light of the parties’ competing allegations, the trial judge’s report, and the third respondent’s lack of objection to transfer to the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar.

It noted that the unnumbered T.O.S. had already been sent to that court for numbering, making that court the appropriate transferee forum.

By contrast, O.S. No. 29 of 2023 had several defendants who had not been heard on transfer; the Court therefore declined to transfer that suit in this petition and left the parties free to seek its transfer separately.

If the T.O.S. had been numbered, the Principal District Court could retain it; otherwise, the Additional District Judge was directed to transmit the records within two weeks of receiving the order.

The Court did not transfer O.S. No. 29 of 2023, but permitted a separate transfer application.

No costs were awarded.