Probate courts may invoke inherent jurisdiction to preserve estates and compel disclosure pending adjudication.

The petitioner, the sole executor named in the registered Will dated 23.10.2024 and Codicil dated 01.08.2025 of Late Lt. Gen. Raju Baijal, instituted probate proceedings under Section 276 read with Sections 222 and 224 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The deceased died on 28.09.2025. Respondents 2 to 5 were his wife, daughter, son and mother, respectively, and were his Class I legal heirs.

The estate included the deceased’s 1/3rd undivided share in Flat No. 125, Munirka Vihar; his 1/4th undivided share in property nos. 765–769, Katra Rishi Bhawan, Tilak Bazar; and movable assets and service benefits.

Respondent no.5 sought disclosure of the estate, details of amounts received, production of mutation records, inventory and rendition-related disclosures, and preservation of the estate pending adjudication.

During the pendency of the probate proceedings, respondent no.2 received most of the Army Group Insurance Fund benefits, while the balance 25% was retained pending the Court’s decision.

The Delhi Development Authority also transferred the deceased’s 1/3rd share in the Munirka Vihar flat to respondent no.2 during the pendency of the proceedings.

The estate had not yet been fully valued and neither the petitioner nor respondent no.2 had filed a reply to the disclosure application.

A separate application sought permission to sell the Katra Rishi Bhawan property; all concerned legal heirs stated that they had no objection, subject to respondent no.2 depositing 1/4th of the sale proceeds with the Court.

1. Whether, in testamentary proceedings for grant of probate, the Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to direct disclosure of the deceased’s estate, production of mutation records, and preservation of estate assets pending adjudication of the Will and Codicil?

2. Whether the petitioner and respondent no.2 should be directed to disclose the estate, benefits and assets received or dealt with after the testator’s death, including the records supporting the DDA transfer of the Munirka Vihar share?

3. Whether permission should be granted to sell the deceased’s 1/4th share in the Katra Rishi Bhawan property when all Class I legal heirs consented to the sale and agreed to deposit respondent no.2’s 1/4th share of the sale proceeds with the Court?

The Court applied Sections 276, 222 and 224 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, governing probate proceedings and the grant of probate to an executor.

It further relied on Section 151 CPC, which preserves the Court’s inherent power to pass orders necessary in the interests of justice.

In Sarup Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3991, the Court held that although an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC may not ordinarily be maintainable in probate proceedings, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC remains available.

Relying on Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 927, the Court recognised that a probate court, while primarily concerned with the execution and genuineness of a Will, cannot remain a silent spectator to glaring irregularities or mischief and may exercise its plenary powers to protect the estate.

Directions for disclosure and preservation may therefore be issued without determining title or the ultimate entitlement of any party.

The Court found that the requested directions concerned disclosure and protection of the estate, not adjudication of title or determination of the validity of the Will.

The insurance benefits had substantially been paid to respondent no.2, but the amount, date and particulars of disbursement had not been disclosed.

Similarly, respondent no.2 had secured transfer of the deceased’s share in the Munirka Vihar flat during the pendency of the probate proceedings, yet the application and supporting documents submitted to the DDA were not on record.

Since the petitioner was the executor and respondent no.2 was the recipient of benefits and the person who obtained the DDA transfer, both were in a position to provide the relevant information on affidavit.

The Court therefore considered disclosure and preservation necessary to keep it apprised of the estate’s composition and current status, without expressing any opinion on the validity of the Will, the Codicil, or the correctness of the DDA transfer.

As regards the proposed sale, all concerned legal heirs unequivocally consented, and the agreed deposit of respondent no.2’s 1/4th share adequately preserved the parties’ interests pending the probate proceedings.

The petitioner and respondent no.2 were directed to file affidavits disclosing the complete movable and immovable estate, bank accounts, investments, benefits, insurance, pensionary entitlements, amounts received or retained, dates of release, recipients, and post-death claims or representations made before relevant authorities.

Respondent no.2 was directed to produce the complete record of the DDA transfer, including her application dated 10.02.2026 and all supporting affidavits, declarations, indemnity bonds and documents.

Until further orders, estate assets were restrained from being alienated, transferred, encumbered or otherwise dealt with, except for recurring pensionary payments and the sale permitted in the separate application.

The Court also allowed the application to sell the Katra Rishi Bhawan property, with respondent no.2 required to deposit 1/4th of the sale consideration in Court upon receipt.

All directions were expressly made without prejudice to the parties’ rights and contentions concerning the validity of the Will, Codicil and other estate properties.