Jammu & Kashmir High Court
W/O Late Nagendra Nath Sharma vs R/O Patel Chowk on 8 July, 2026
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
Sr. No. 123
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No:- MA No. 85/2014
Reserved on : 02.07.2026.
Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026.
Uploaded on : 08 .07.2026.
1. Sushila Sharma (Age 75)
w/o late Nagendra Nath Sharma .... Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
R/o D-87, Haus Khas, New Delhi-16
2. Lalima Awasthi (Age 50)
W/o Sh. Rajiv Awasthi
C/o D-87, Haus Khas, New Delhi-16
3. Poornima Sharma (Age 46)
W/o Sh. Vishal Prashar
C/o D-87, Haus Khas, New Delhi -
16
Through:- Ms. Zoya Bhardwaj, Advocate
V/s
1. Mahindra Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Kidar Nath Shastri
R/o Patel Chowk, Jammu .....Respondent(s)
2. Dr. Pran Nath
S/o Late Kidar Nath Shastri
R/o APT-489, Pleasant Street, Brook Line,
Baston (Mass), USA.
Through:- Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Amit Khajuria, Advocate vice
Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for R-2.
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 1 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The deceased appellant, Nagendra Nath Sharma, now represented
through his legal representatives, has challenged the order dated
11.11.2013 passed by the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge,
Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Probate Court”), whereby the
petition filed by respondent No. 1, Mahinder Kumar Sharma, under
Section 62 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977 (Samvat) (the
then applicable State Act, which now stands repealed pursuant to the
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019) was allowed.
2. Respondent No. 1 had sought the grant of probate in respect of the Will
dated 24.12.1976, allegedly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of
the parties, namely Late Shri Kidar Nath Shastri. By virtue of the
impugned order, the Probate Court granted probate of the said Will.
The principal ground of challenge is that the Probate Court lacked
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and allow the petition, as neither was
the testator residing within its territorial jurisdiction nor was the
property forming the subject matter of the Will situated within such
jurisdiction. It is further contended that although the testator died in the
year 1980, the Will was sought to be probated only after a delay of
approximately 19 years, during which period it remained exclusively in
the custody of respondent No. 1.
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 2 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
3. It is further submitted that, under the terms of the Will, the mother of
the parties was granted only a life interest, with the remainder to
devolve equally upon the three sons of the deceased testator, namely
Nagendra Nath Sharma (since deceased), Mahinder Kumar Sharma
(respondent No. 1), and Dr. Pran Nath. Despite the demise of the
mother in the year 1987, no steps were taken to obtain probate of the
Will for several years thereafter, thereby casting serious doubt on the
genuineness and authenticity of the alleged Will. It is also contended
that the Will has not been proved in accordance with the requirements
of law. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellants further submitted that the deceased testator had not
appointed any executor under the Will. Consequently, in terms of
Section 6 of the Probate and Administration Act, probate could be
granted only to an executor appointed by the Will. In the absence of
such an appointment, the petition for probate itself was not
maintainable. It is, therefore, submitted that the Probate Court
misdirected itself in law and fell into manifest error in granting probate.
4. The appellants placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court
reported as AIR 2009 (1) JK (HC) 8: 2009 SLJ 464: AIR 2010 J&K
1, Thoru Ram v. Rattan Lal and Others, and AIR 2009 (1) JK (HC)
472: 2009 (1) KLJ 79, Rattan Mani v. Mohinder Kumar and Others, to
contend that probate cannot be granted in the absence of an executor
appointed under the Will, particularly where the Will merely identifies
beneficiaries without appointing any executor.
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 3 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, while controverting the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, argued that no
objection regarding the maintainability of the probate petition was
raised before the Probate Court. Consequently, such a plea, being raised
for the first time in the present appeal, is an afterthought and is not
liable to be entertained. On merits, it was submitted that the probate
petition was instituted in the year 1999 and, after a full-fledged trial, the
Probate Court, by the impugned order, rightly granted probate of the
Will. It was further contended that the Probate Court, upon a
comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence,
recorded a categorical finding that the Will was genuine, free from any
suspicious circumstances, and had been duly proved in accordance with
law. According to the respondents, the appellants failed to adduce any
cogent evidence to discredit the genuineness of the Will or to rebut the
evidence led by the propounder. It was, therefore, submitted that the
findings recorded by the Probate Court are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence and are neither perverse nor contrary to
law, warranting no interference in the present appeal.
6. Insofar as the legal objection that probate could not have been granted
in the absence of an executor appointed under the Will is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court, in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, is fully empowered to do complete
justice by treating the proceedings as one for the grant of Letters of
Administration. It was further submitted that the three beneficiaries
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 4 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
under the Will are the real brothers of the parties and that the property
forming the subject matter of the Will is a residential house situated in
Delhi. It was pointed out that respondent No. 2 has already conveyed
that he has no objection to the Will being given effect to by the grant of
appropriate relief. It was further argued that, during the lifetime of the
testator and thereafter, only the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants
and respondent No. 1 were in occupation of the said house. According
to the respondents, after the demise of the testator and subsequently his
widow, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants adopted an
obstructive stand and began disputing the validity of the Will with a
view to deprive respondent No. 1 of the benefits flowing therefrom. It
was, therefore, contended that the appellants have failed to substantiate
their challenge to the Will and that the impugned order warrants no
interference.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and seen the record of the proceedings.
8. From the material available on record, it is evident that the probate
petition was instituted by respondent No. 1, Mahinder Kumar Sharma,
before the Probate Court in the year 1999. At the threshold, the
appellants filed an application seeking rejection of the probate petition
on the ground that the Probate Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as
the property forming the subject matter of the Will was situated outside
its jurisdiction. The said application was contested by respondent No. 1
and, by order dated 23.05.2002, the Probate Court rejected the
objection. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred a revision
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 5 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
petition before this Court, which also came to be dismissed. Thereafter,
the appellants contested the probate petition on merits. Consequently,
the issue of territorial jurisdiction already stands concluded by virtue of
the order passed by this Court in the revision proceedings, which has
attained finality. Accordingly, the contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the Courts at Delhi alone possessed
jurisdiction is devoid of any legal merit. In any event, the evidence
adduced during the probate proceedings clearly establishes that the
deceased testator had his last fixed place of abode at Jammu, where the
Will was executed and duly registered, thereby conferring territorial
jurisdiction upon the Probate Court at Jammu.
9. In terms of Section 56 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977
(Samvat), the District Judge is competent to grant probate of a Will
where it appears from the petition that, at the time of his death, the
testator had either a fixed place of abode or any property within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Section 62 of the Act prescribes the
particulars required to be stated in a petition for probate. A perusal of
the record reveals that respondent No. 1 had duly complied with the
statutory requirements prescribed under the Act. Since the issue of
territorial jurisdiction already stands concluded and has attained
finality, it cannot be permitted to be reopened in the present appeal.
10. The Will executed by Late Shri Kidar Nath Shastri pertained to
residential property bearing House No. D-87, Hauz Khas, Delhi.
Although the testator had four sons and one daughter, he bequeathed
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 6 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
the said property, out of love and affection, exclusively in favour of his
three sons, namely, Nagendra Nath Sharma (since deceased),
Mahinder Kumar Sharma (respondent No. 1), and Dr. Pran Nath.
At the relevant time, Dr. Pran Nath was residing in the United States of
America, whereas the other two beneficiaries were residing in the said
house along with the testator.
11. The Will further stipulated that the wife of the testator would enjoy a
life interest in the property and would remain in possession thereof
during her lifetime, without any right to alienate, mortgage, or
otherwise encumber the same. Upon her demise, the property was to
devolve equally upon the aforesaid three beneficiaries. The Will was
executed on 24.12.1976 and was duly registered before the Sub-
Registrar, Jammu, on the same date. During the course of the trial,
PW-Vimla Sharma, the sister of the parties, deposed that her father
had executed the Will on 24.12.1976 and that it was registered at their
residence in her presence. She further stated that, under the terms of the
Will, the testator bequeathed a life interest in the property to his wife,
who was not entitled to sell, mortgage, or otherwise alienate the
property during her lifetime, and that, upon her demise, the property
was to devolve in equal shares upon the three sons who were parties to
the probate proceedings.
12. PW-Om Parkash Goswami, who was acquainted with the deceased
testator, deposed that the Will had been drafted by Shri Som Dev Bhat.
He further stated that the testator was a noted literary figure and the
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 7 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
author of two volumes of the book Katha Sarit Sagar, the first of which
was published in the year 1975, while the second volume was published
in March, 1979. PW-Krishan Kumar, one of the attesting witnesses
to the Will, deposed that the testator was in a sound and disposing state
of mind at the time of execution of the Will. He further stated that the
Will was executed and registered at the residence of the testator and
that he had signed the document as an attesting witness. The said Will
was exhibited as Ext. KK.
13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants fairly
conceded that no proceedings had ever been initiated before any court
of competent jurisdiction challenging the validity or genuineness of the
Will. A perusal of the trial court record further reveals that the deceased
appellant, Nagendra Nath Sharma, entered the witness box in support
of his case and examined DW-Narinder Dand, DW-Surya Anand,
and Dr. Susheel Kumar Dand as defence witnesses. Upon completion
of the pleadings, the Probate Court had framed the following issues for
determination:
1. Whether the petition without attaching the original
will with it is liable to be dismissed? OPP
2. Whether the petition without mentioning the value of
the property is bad in law, if so what is its effect? OPR
3. Whether the petition without verification and
certificate of one of the witnesses of the Will is liable
to be dismissed? OPR
4. Whether the petition is time barred? OPR
5. Whether petition for non-joinder of the party is liable
to be dismissed? OPR
6. Whether the petition without giving the detail of
moveable and immoveable property left by testator Pt.
Kidar Nath Shastri in the State of J&K and other
parts of the country is liable to be dismissed? OPR
7. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
petition? OPR
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 8 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
8. Whether the Will dated 24.12.1976 was the last Will
executed by Kidar Nath Shastri with sound mind?
OPP
9. Relief.
14. During the course of the trial, the appellants did not press Issue Nos. 1,
2, and 3. The Probate Court recorded that these issues had become
redundant in view of the subsequent rectification of the deficiencies
pointed out in the probate petition. Likewise, Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were
also not pressed by the appellants and were accordingly deleted. As a
result, only Issue Nos. 4, 7, and 8 survived for adjudication. Upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Probate Court
categorically held that the appellants had failed to establish that any
recital contained in the Will was false or fabricated. The Court further
found that they had also failed to prove that the testator was not in a
sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will.
15. In view of the aforesaid factual discussion, the findings recorded by the
Probate Court do not suffer from perversity or any manifest error
warranting interference by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for
the appellants and examined the record, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any infirmity,
factual or legal, in the appreciation of evidence by the Probate Court.
No material has been brought on record to establish that the findings
are either contrary to the evidence or otherwise unsustainable in law.
Indeed, the appellants have been unable to point out any factual lacuna
or perversity in the impugned judgment. The principal contention urged
on their behalf, and the only issue requiring consideration in the present
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 9 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
appeal, is that, in the absence of an executor appointed under the Will,
the Probate Court could not have granted probate.
16. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the
appellants placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported as
AIR 2009 (1) JK (HC) 8: 2009 SLJ 464: AIR 2010 J&K 1, Tohru Ram
v. Rattan Lal and Others. In the said case, the beneficiary under the
Will had sought the grant of probate on the premise that, being a
beneficiary, he was entitled to maintain such a petition. Repelling the
said contention, this Court held that the District Judge had committed
an error in granting probate in favour of a beneficiary. Upon
examination of the evidence, the Court found that the testator had not
appointed or nominated any person as an executor under the Will. It
was, therefore, held that, in the absence of an executor appointed by the
testator, the law did not permit the grant of probate. Consequently, the
order granting probate was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary
to the statutory provisions, as probate can be granted only to an
executor appointed under the Will and not to a mere beneficiary. The
said legal position was reiterated by this Court in Rattan Mani v.
Mohinder Kumar and Others, reported as AIR 2009 (1) JK (HC) 472:
2009 (1) KLJ 79, wherein it was held that a conjoint reading of the
relevant provisions of the Probate and Administration Act makes it
abundantly clear that probate can be granted only in favour of an
executor appointed under the Will. In cases where the deceased has
made a Will but has not appointed an executor, or where the executor
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 10 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144appointed is legally incapable of acting, has predeceased the testator, or
dies before obtaining probate, the appropriate relief is the grant of
Letters of Administration.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that although
the Probate Court granted probate despite the absence of an executor
appointed under the Will, such a defect is merely procedural in nature
and can be appropriately remedied by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction by treating the proceedings as one for the grant of
Letters of Administration. It was argued that this Court possesses ample
power to mould the relief in order to do complete justice between the
parties. However, in Tohru Ram (supra), this Court declined to accept
the said contention. While allowing the appeal, it held that the defect
could not be cured by directly converting the probate proceedings into
proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration at the appellate stage
and, accordingly, remanded the matter to the learned District Judge for
consideration of the case in accordance with law.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance
upon the judgments reported as AIR 1963 Madras 456 and AIR 1963
Gujarat 32, and submitted that the principles enunciated therein have
been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2016) 13 SCC 253. It
was contended that where a petition has been instituted seeking probate
of a Will, the absence of an executor does not render the proceedings
non-maintainable in their entirety. At the highest, it constitutes a
procedural defect capable of being cured by permitting appropriate
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 11 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
amendment of the petition. According to the learned counsel, such a
technical defect cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of the
parties, particularly when the validity and due execution of the Will
have otherwise been established in accordance with law. It was,
therefore, argued that a petition seeking the grant of probate can, in an
appropriate case, be permitted to be converted into a petition for the
grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, as such
conversion is merely procedural in nature and does not alter the
substance of the controversy requiring adjudication.
19. Before discussing these legal issues, it is desirable to first examine the
statutory position, the Probate and Administration Act, Svt. 1977,
which was in vogue at the time when the probate proceedings were
initiated happened to be the State Act of XXIX of Svt. 1977, which
continue to operate until it was repealed by coming into force of the
J&K Reorganization Act of 2019 which now stands at least replaced by
20. Section 3 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977 (Samvat)
defines “probate” to mean a copy of the Will certified under the seal of
a Court of competent jurisdiction, together with the grant of
administration to the estate of the testator. The expression “executor”
means a person to whom the execution of the last Will of a deceased
person is entrusted by way of appointment by the testator. The term
“administrator” means a person appointed by a competent authority to
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 12 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
administer the estate of a deceased person where no executor has been
appointed or is otherwise competent to act.
21. Under Section 6 of the Act, probate can be granted only to an executor
appointed by the Will. Such appointment, in terms of Section 7, may be
either express or implied. Section 8 provides that probate cannot be
granted to a person who is a minor or is of unsound mind. Section 9
further stipulates that where several executors have been appointed,
probate may be granted to all of them jointly or to such of them as may
apply, either simultaneously or at different times. The grant of probate
establishes the Will from the date of the death of the testator and
validates all intermediate acts lawfully performed by the executor in
that capacity. Insofar as Letters of Administration are concerned,
Section 13 provides that the same cannot be granted to a person who is
a minor or is of unsound mind.
22. In terms of Section 14, the grant of Letters of Administration vests in
the administrator all the rights belonging to the deceased as effectively
as if the administration had been granted immediately upon the death of
the deceased. Section 16 carves out an exception by providing that
where an executor has been appointed under the Will and has neither
renounced the executorship nor been cited to accept or renounce the
same, Letters of Administration shall not be granted to any other
person. Section 18 further provides that where an executor renounces
the executorship or fails to accept it, the Will may nevertheless be
proved and Letters of Administration with the Will annexed may be
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 13 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
granted to the person who would have been entitled to administration in
the event of intestacy.
23. Section 19 further provides that where the deceased has made a Will
but has not appointed an executor, or where the executor so appointed
is legally incapable of acting, refuses to act, or has died before the
testator, a universal or residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the
Will, and Letters of Administration with the Will annexed may be
granted in respect of the whole estate or such part thereof as remains
unadministered.
24. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions leaves no manner of
doubt that probate can be granted only to an executor duly appointed by
the testator under the Will. Where no executor has been appointed, or
where the executor is incapable of acting or otherwise unavailable in
the circumstances contemplated by the Act, the appropriate relief is the
grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. The
provisions of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977 (Samvat) are,
in all material respects, Pari Materia with the corresponding provisions
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and, therefore, judicial precedents
interpreting the latter Act are of considerable persuasive value while
construing the former.
25. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, in MFA No. 3238 of
2019 (ISA), considered a case in which the trial Court had held the
probate petition to be not maintainable. In that case, the deceased had
executed a Will without appointing an executor, and the sole
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 14 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
beneficiary under the Will had also passed away. Thereafter, the
beneficiary’s wife filed a petition seeking probate of the Will. The trial
Court, relying upon Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,
held that a petition for probate could be maintained only by an executor
named in the Will and, since the appellant had not been appointed as an
executor, probate could not be granted in her favour. Setting aside the
order of the trial Court, the Division Bench held that, where the
appellant was the sole beneficiary under the Will and no executor had
been appointed by the testator, the petition could not be rejected merely
on that ground. The Court observed as under:
“If the reasoning of the trial Court is accepted, then in all cases
where no executor is named in the Will, probate cannot be
granted and such Wills/codicils would be rendered completely
ineffective or useless. The mischief can only be prevented by
referring to Section 222(2), whereunder, if the executor is not
named in the Will, the inference that could be drawn is that the
legatee would become the executor since, without obtaining
probate, the beneficiary would not be able to implement the Will
and thereby give effect to the last wishes of the testator. The
legatee/beneficiary is, therefore, by necessary implication,
deemed to have been appointed as the executor of the Will”.
26. The Division Bench, upon a conjoint reading of Sections 222(2), 231,
and 234 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, concluded that the right to
seek probate is not confined exclusively to an executor expressly
named in the Will. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a
given case, and having regard to the scheme of the Act, a legatee or
other person entitled under the Will may also be permitted to seek the
appropriate testamentary relief where no executor has been appointed
by the testator. Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the order of
the trial Court dismissing the probate petition. Since the genuineness
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 15 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
and due execution of the Will had not been adjudicated on merits, the
matter was remanded to the Probate Court for fresh consideration. The
Probate Court was directed to entertain the petition at the instance of
the appellant-legatee, treat the proceedings in accordance with law, and
thereafter determine, on the basis of the evidence to be adduced,
whether the Will was duly proved and whether the appellant was
entitled to the grant of the appropriate testamentary relief.
27. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in Govind M. Asrani v.
Jairam Asrani, reported as AIR 1963 Madras 456, held that the
principal question arising in testamentary proceedings is the truth and
genuineness of the Will. Whether the proceedings are for the grant of
probate or for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will
annexed, any person having an interest in the estate is entitled to
intervene and participate in the proceedings. The Division Bench
further observed that although a grant of probate is distinct from a grant
of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, and the procedural
requirements governing the two may differ, including the necessity of
furnishing security, the ultimate adjudication regarding the validity and
genuineness of the Will is common to both proceedings. Such an
adjudication operates as a judgment in rem and is binding upon all
persons claiming an interest in the estate of the deceased testator. The
Court emphasised that procedural technicalities ought not to defeat the
substantive rights of the parties where the real controversy concerns the
due execution and genuineness of the Will.
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 16 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
28. A similar view was expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Jadeja
Pravinsinhji Anandsinhji v. Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji, reported as
AIR 1963 Gujarat 32, wherein it was observed:
“An executor, in the capacity of an executor, has no
personal interest in the estate of the deceased. The object of the
executor in these proceedings is to obtain an adjudication, not
of any dispute in which he is personally interested, but to
propound the Will of the deceased for the benefit of those who
claim an interest thereunder. It is, therefore, clear that an
executor, in applying for probate, is not prosecuting a personal
action but is acting for the benefit of all the beneficiaries under
the Will. Consequently, the maxim actio personalis moritur
cum persona has no application to such proceedings. If the
executor fails in his duty, any person whom he represents is
entitled to intervene and continue the proceedings, subject to
the formal modification that the relief thereafter sought would
be Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.”
29. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Madras High
Court and the Gujarat High Court were considered and approved by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vatsala Srinivasan v. Shyamala
Raghunathan, reported as (2016) 13 SCC 253. In that case, the
executor named under the Will died during the pendency of the
testamentary proceedings. Thereafter, the sole legatee applied for the
grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed and also
sought amendment of the testamentary petition. An objection was
raised that, upon the death of the executor, the proceedings had abated
and could not be continued. The learned Single Judge rejected the
objection, permitted the amendment, and directed that the proceedings
continue as one for the grant of Letters of Administration. The said
view was affirmed by the Apex Court and dismissing the appeal, it was
held as under,
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 17 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
“We are in agreement with the view expressed by all the three High
Courts. In the interest of justice, and for the aforesaid reasons, we
dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of. We hope that the hearing before
the Testamentary Court shall be expedited and the proceedings for grant
of Letters of Administration shall continue in accordance with law.”
30. The consistent legal position emerging from the aforesaid judicial
pronouncement is that, where an executor has been appointed under a
Will, it is the executor alone who is entitled to seek the grant of probate
for the purpose of giving effect to the testamentary disposition. An
executor does not claim any beneficial interest in the estate by virtue of
such appointment; rather, he acts in a representative capacity to
administer the estate in accordance with the wishes of the testator.
Under Section 17 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977
(Samvat), an executor may renounce the executorship either orally
before the Court or by an instrument in writing. Once such renunciation
is made in accordance with law, the executor is precluded from
thereafter applying for the grant of probate.
31. In a situation where the sole executor appointed under the Will dies
before obtaining probate, or otherwise becomes incapable of acting,
probate cannot thereafter be granted in his favour. In such
circumstances, the beneficiaries or other persons entitled under the Will
are competent to seek the grant of Letters of Administration with the
Will annexed, so that the testamentary intentions of the deceased may
be duly implemented in accordance with law.
32. Likewise, where the deceased has executed a Will but has not
appointed any executor, recourse may be had to Section 19 of the
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 18 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
Probate and Administration Act, 1977 (Samvat), which is pari materia
with Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In such cases, the
Court is empowered, in appropriate circumstances, to grant Letters of
Administration with the Will annexed to the beneficiary or other person
legally entitled to administer the estate. The same principle applies
where the executor has renounced the executorship, refuses to act, is
legally incapable of acting, or otherwise fails to accept the office. In all
such situations, the beneficiary or legatee under the Will is entitled to
seek the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed,
thereby ensuring that the wishes of the testator are carried into effect
notwithstanding the absence or inability of an executor.
33. The aforesaid legal proposition also stands authoritatively affirmed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambu Prasad Agarwal and Others
v. Bhola Ram Agarwal, (2000) 9 SCC 714 (Civil Appeal No. 74 of
1997, decided on 25.08.1999). In that case, the original applicant, who
was a legatee under the Will, had instituted a petition seeking probate.
During the pendency of the proceedings, he died, whereupon his legal
heirs sought their substitution in the testamentary proceedings and also
prayed for amendment of the petition by converting the relief from one
for grant of probate to one for grant of Letters of Administration with
the Will annexed. Both applications were rejected by the Probate Court,
and the revision preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the High
Court. Reversing the judgments of the Courts below, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 19 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
*”5. We find that it is not disputed that Matadin Agarwal was a
legatee under the will. It is true that Matadin Agarwal ought to
have applied for issue of letters of administration and not for
probate. However, this did not debar his heirs to get the probate
petition amended. The trial Court rejected both the applications
of the appellants on the ground that since the probate petition
filed by the legatee related to his personal right, therefore no
right accrued to the appellants for their substitution in his place.
This view, according to us, is not correct. Matadin Agarwal, as
stated above, was a legatee and not an executor under the Will. It
is true that where an executor dies, his heirs cannot be substituted
because the executor possessed personal right, but this is not
applicable where the heirs of a legatee apply for issue of letters of
administration. It is not disputed that today the appellants can file
a petition for issue of letter of administration. Since considerable
time has elapsed, we feel that the interest of justice demands that
the proceedings should come to an end as early as possible and
we should not dismiss this appeal merely on highly technical
ground.”
34. The aforesaid decision unequivocally lays down that, while the office
of an executor is personal in nature and, therefore, upon the death of an
executor his legal heirs cannot be substituted in testamentary
proceedings, a different principle applies where the original applicant is
a legatee under the Will. In such a case, the legal heirs of the legatee are
entitled to seek their substitution and to pray for amendment of the
proceedings by converting a petition for probate into one for the grant
of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, where the
circumstances so warrant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thus held
that such a procedural defect cannot be permitted to defeat the
substantive rights of the parties, particularly where the validity of the
Will is otherwise capable of being adjudicated. The mere necessity of
amending the nature of the testamentary relief sought cannot, by itself,
constitute a ground for dismissal of the proceedings on technical
considerations.
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 20 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
35. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the present case,
the Will executed by the deceased testator has been duly proved to be
genuine, and the finding recorded by the Probate Court in this regard
cannot be said to be perverse. The objection regarding jurisdiction
raised by the appellants also fails, as not only was the Will executed at
Jammu, but the deceased testator was also last residing within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Probate Court. Admittedly, the Will did not
appoint an executor, as the testator created a life interest in favour of
his wife, with the property to be apportioned equally amongst his three
sons after her demise. One of the sons, namely Dr. Pran Nath, had also
expressed his no-objection to the grant of probate. Although, I agree
with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that, in the
absence of an executor, the appropriate remedy was to seek the
issuance of Letters of Administration rather than probate, the question
is whether such a procedural defect warrant remanding the matter to the
trial Court for a fresh adjudication. The Division Bench of the High
Court of Karnataka, in MFA No. 3238/2019 (ISA), Smt. Rihana
Parveen v. Nil, remanded the matter to the trial Court to permit
amendment of the petition, as the genuineness of the Will had yet to be
determined.
36. In the present case, however, that stage has already been crossed. The
Probate Court has examined the entire evidence in detail and has
conclusively held that the Will is genuine. Furthermore, the appellants
never challenged the Will by instituting appropriate civil proceedings,
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 21 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
which also reinforces the absence of any serious dispute regarding its
genuineness. The mere fact that the Will remained unprobated for
nineteen years cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to reject the
proceedings, particularly when, until 1987, the mother of the parties,
who enjoyed a life interest under the Will, was alive. It was only after
her demise that the beneficiaries became entitled to seek administration
and distribution of the estate in accordance with the Will.
37. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court
that only the legal representatives of the deceased appellant and
respondent No. 1 were jointly occupying the house in question. In these
circumstances, the Court which granted probate was equally competent
to issue Letters of Administration. Though the proper procedure
required the respondents to seek Letters of Administration instead of
probate, such a technical defect cannot be permitted to defeat the ends
of substantial justice.
38. The Will was executed in the year 1976. The testator died in 1980, and
the mother of the parties, who held a life interest, passed away in 1987.
In these circumstances, remanding the matter to the trial Court merely
to permit amendment of the petition by substituting a prayer for Letters
of Administration in place of probate would unnecessarily prolong the
litigation and subject the parties to further hardship. Both proceedings
of the grant of probate and of Letters of Administration with the Will
annexed, relate to the implementation and administration of the Will.
The law does not prohibit a beneficiary from continuing the
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 22 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
proceedings and seeking formal conversion of the petition from one for
probate to one for Letters of Administration, where the legal
requirements otherwise stand satisfied. In support of this proposition,
this Court places reliance on Shambu Prasad Aggarwal v. Bhola Ram
and Vatsala Srinivasan v. Shyamala Raghunath supra. Accordingly, the
appellants and respondents, being beneficiaries under the Will, are
entitled to seek Letters of Administration for administering the estate in
accordance with the testamentary disposition. The reliance placed by
the appellant on aforesaid two decisions “supra” of this court and the
view expressed therein cannot prevail once it is contrary to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court.
39. In the aforesaid circumstances, remanding the matter to the trial Court
would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, in order to do complete
justice, and in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary,
this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers directs that the probate
granted by the trial Court shall stand converted into Letters of
Administration in favour of respondent No. 1, one of the beneficiaries
under the Will, authorising him to administer the estate strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Probate and
Administration Act, 1977.
40. To that extent, the impugned order passed by the trial Court shall stand
modified. It is further directed that Letters of Administration, together
with a copy of the Will annexed thereto, shall be issued in favour of
respondent No. 1, authorising him to administer the estate in
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 23 of 24
2021:JKLHC-JMU:12144
accordance with the Will, subject to payment of the requisite court fee
after the valuation of the property is assessed. In the event that probate
has already been issued, the same shall stand recalled, and the court fee
already deposited shall be adjusted towards the fee payable for the
issuance of Letters of Administration. Any deficiency in court fee, if
found payable, shall be deposited before the Court below.
41. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The
parties shall bear their own costs. Copy be notified to trial Court for
further compliance as aforesaid.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
08.07.2026
Rahul Sharma
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes
Case No. MA No. 85/2014 Page 24 of 24
