Probate establishes a will’s due execution but does not adjudicate title to bequeathed property.

The plaintiff sought probate of his mother’s Will dated 28 August 2019, naming him as executor.

His brother contested the Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, coercion and fabrication, and relying on an earlier Will and a 2016 registered settlement deed in his favour concerning the Chennai property.

The defendant also disputed the plaintiff’s claim to fixed deposits, which had been addressed in separate proceedings at Kalaburagi.

The probate petition was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit following the caveat.

The plaintiff and one attesting witness testified; the parties also produced the Will, medical records, the settlement deed and the Kalaburagi judgment and decree.

1. Whether the Will dated 28 August 2019 was true and genuine, including whether it was duly executed and attested by a testatrix possessing testamentary capacity and acting freely.

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to probate and, if so, the scope of the grant in light of the settlement deed and the Kalaburagi decree concerning the fixed deposits.

Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provide the basis for a grant of probate to the executor named in a Will and for the probate petition, respectively.

A Will’s propounder must prove due execution and attestation, the testator’s testamentary capacity, and that the instrument represents the testator’s free and voluntary intention; where suspicious circumstances arise, the propounder must satisfactorily explain them.

Probate jurisdiction determines the genuineness and due execution of the Will, not competing questions of title to property.

The Court relied on Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardyal Singh Dhillon (2007) 11 SCC 357 and Pasupati Nath Das (Dead) v. Chanchal Kumar Das (Dead) by Legal Representatives (2018) 18 SCC 547 for that limitation.

The Court accepted the attesting witness’s direct evidence that the testatrix initiated the Will, dictated and reviewed its contents, signed it in the presence of both witnesses, and understood its effect; the witness also described how the original Will came into the plaintiff’s custody.

The medical discharge summary and, significantly, the defendant’s admission that his mother was mentally and physically fit on the date of execution supported testamentary capacity.

The defendant did not establish coercion or undue influence, and the Court found that the earlier Will, absence of a separate medical certificate, alleged signature variations and lack of detailed deposit particulars did not displace the attesting witness’s evidence.

The Court left the legal effect of the settlement deed and the parties’ property rights open, and held that the probate grant would not disturb rights determined by the Kalaburagi decree concerning the fixed deposits.

It decreed the suit and granted probate to the plaintiff as executor, while clarifying that the grant did not adjudicate title to the Chennai property or affect rights under the Kalaburagi decree; the plaintiff was directed to file the inventory and accounts within six months of receiving a copy of the order.