Testamentary petitions: Grant of Letters of Administration on intestacy not maintainable if Will exists.

Mr. Arvind Singh Mewar (deceased) passed away on March 16, 2025, survived by four Class I legal heirs: Padmaja Kumari Parmar (Petitioner in TEST.CAS. 2/2026), Bhargavi Kumari Mewar (Respondent No.2 in TEST.CAS. 2/2026), Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar (Respondent No.1 in TEST.CAS. 2/2026 and Petitioner in TEST.CAS. 4/2026), and Vijayraj Kumari Mewar (Respondent No.3 in TEST.CAS. 2/2026)

The Petitioner (Padmaja Kumari Parmar) filed TEST.CAS. 2/2026 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (later transferred to Delhi High Court) under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking Letters of Administration on the premise that the deceased died intestate

She acknowledged knowledge of two purported testamentary writings, including one dated February 7, 2025 (the Will), but challenged their validity, alleging that the deceased lacked sound mind and was under undue influence, and that the execution was suspicious

Subsequently, Respondent No.1 (Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar) filed TEST.CAS. 4/2026 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur (later transferred to Delhi High Court) under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking Letters of Administration with the Will dated February 7, 2025, annexed

He claimed to be the universal legatee under this Will, asserted its due execution and registration, and contended that the deceased was of sound mind at the time

Both petitions were transferred and tagged by the Apex Court to be heard together in the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court considered the maintainability of TEST.CAS. 2/2026

The court primarily applied the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

It referenced Section 278 for applications for Letters of Administration in cases of intestacy

It distinguished this from Section 276 for applications for probate or Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, which require proof of the Will

Furthermore, the court referred to Section 263, which allows for the revocation of Letters of Administration for 'just cause', specifically citing Illustration (v) where a Will is discovered after a grant of administration on intestacy

The court also highlighted Section 295, mandating that contentious testamentary proceedings take the form of a regular civil suit

It relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh*, (1993) 2 SCC 507, affirming that probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the genuineness and due execution of a Will, and such proceedings are _in rem_

The court also cited *Bindia Kriplani v. Naresh Nathulal Pal*, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2005, which held that a Petition for Letters of Administration cannot be decided while a Petition for Probate of the same estate is pending, and the latter typically takes precedence

The court found that TEST.CAS. 2/2026, filed under Section 278 for Letters of Administration on the basis of intestacy, was not maintainable given the Petitioner's acknowledgment of a Will and the parallel TEST.CAS. 4/2026 filed under Section 276 seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed

The court reasoned that the validity of a testamentary instrument must be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings under Section 276, where the Will is propounded and proved, not in proceedings founded on intestacy

Merely asserting the invalidity of a Will does not automatically render an estate intestate

The court underscored that a grant of Letters of Administration based on intestacy can be revoked if a Will is subsequently discovered (Illustration (v) to Section 263)

This legislative intent, coupled with Section 295, which converts contentious testamentary proceedings into regular suits, suggests that disputes over a Will's validity should be resolved where the Will is formally presented

The court agreed with *Bindia Kriplani* that a Petition for Probate (or LA with Will annexed) blocks a Petition for Letters of Administration on intestacy

Allowing parallel proceedings would lead to multiplicity of litigation and potentially conflicting findings, which the statutory scheme aims to avoid

The court clarified that while the burden of proving a Will rests on the propounder (as cited by the Petitioner), testamentary proceedings under the Indian Succession Act are the specific forum for such adjudication, not ordinary civil suits for partition where a Will might incidentally surface

The court emphasized that the validity of a Will cannot be determined in a Section 278 petition which does not provide for the evidentiary requirements of proving a Will

It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the petition for Letters of Administration on intestacy once a Will has surfaced and another petition for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed (TEST.CAS. 4/2026) has been filed

All contentions regarding the validity and suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will raised in TEST.CAS. 2/2026 can be appropriately adjudicated within TEST.CAS. 4/2026

The petition, TEST.CAS. 2/2026, was dismissed along with any pending applications

The Petitioner was granted liberty to raise the same grounds and contentions in TEST.CAS. 4/2026

TEST.CAS. 4/2026 was listed for further proceedings