2021 INSC 0073
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.970 OF 2016
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL … PETITIONER
Versus
YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.2779 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T
1. While Transfer Petition (C) No.970 of 2016 is for the transfer of
a   suit   for   partition,   pending   on   the   file   of   the   Additional   District
Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi to a Court of competent jurisdiction
in   the   District   of   Nainital,   Uttarakhand,   Transfer   Petition   (C)
No.2779 of 2019 is for the transfer of a testamentary case pending
on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital to the District

2
Court at Saket, New Delhi.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. One Shri Badri Nath Agarwal, who was ordinarily a resident of
Village   Bithoriya   No.1,   Tehsil   Haldwani,   District   Nainital,
Uttarakhand,   died   on   07.05.2011,   at   the   ripe   old   age   of   91   years,
leaving  behind him  surviving, five sons  and a daughter. They  were
(1)   Major   Ravinder   Nath   Agarwal,   (2)   Surender   Nath,   (3)   Narender
Nath,   (4)   Virender   Nath   Agarwal,   (5)   Lily   Nath   (daughter)   and   (6)
Yogender   Nath   Agarwal.   Out   of   these   six   children,   Shri   Narender
Nath is now no more. He died on 06.09.2019 leaving behind his wife
Smt. Ira Joshi and two sons by name Nikhil Nath and Aditya Nath.
4. Claiming that his father Late Badri Nath executed his last Will
and Testament on 06.04.2011, cancelling and revoking his previous
Will   dated   26.06.2005   and   that   under   the   last   Will   dated
06.04.2011,   a   vast   extent   of   agricultural   land   in   Village   Bithoriya
No.1, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital, was bequeathed to him, the
eldest son Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal got mutation effected in his
favour   in   the   revenue   records,   but   the   same   became   the   subject
matter   of   a   writ   petition   filed   by   Lily   Nath   on   the   file   of   the   High

3
Court   of   Uttarakhand.   Apart   from   filing   a   writ   petition   challenging
the mutation effected in favour of her eldest brother, Lily Nath also
filed   a   civil   suit   in   Suit   No.57   of   2011   on   the   file   of   Civil   Judge,
Senior Division, Nainital seeking a decree of permanent injunction.
As   a   counter   blast,   Major   Ravinder   Nath,   who   claims   to   be   the
legatee under  the  Will  and who  got mutation  effected in his favour
in respect of one property, also filed civil suit in Suit No.72 of 2011
on   the   file   of   the   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division   seeking   a   decree   of
permanent injunction.
5. Thereafter the last son Shri Yogender Nath, filed a suit in C.S
No.2745 of 2012 on the file of High Court of Delhi, for a partition of
all the properties left behind by Shri Badri Nath. The suit was filed
in   September­2012.   But   in   the   year   2016,   presumably   after   the
filing of the written statements, the said suit was transferred to the
file of the Additional District Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi and re­
numbered as C.S No.126 of 2016.
6. Immediately thereafter, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal filed the
first   of   these   transfer   petitions   namely   T.P   (C)   No.   970   of   2016,
seeking   the   transfer  of   the   partition   suit  pending   on   the   file   of  the

4
Additional District Judge, Saket, New Delhi to the Court of District
Judge at Nainital, Uttarakhand. On 08.07.2016, this Court ordered
notice   in   the   transfer   petition   and   also   granted   stay   of   further
proceedings in the partition suit.
7. But   a   few   days   before   this   Court   ordered   notice   and   granted
stay,   the   plaintiff   in   the   partition   suit   namely   Sh.   Yogender   Nath
(last son) abandoned the suit and hence the only daughter Lily Nath
got   herself   transposed   as   the   plaintiff,   by   moving   an   application
under   Order   XXIII   Rule   1­A.   The   original   plaintiff   Yogender   Nath
was transposed as defendant No.5. 
8. On 09.10.2018, this Court passed an order in T.P (C) No. 970
of   2016,   vacating   the   stay   of   further   proceedings   in   the   partition
suit earlier granted on 08.07.2016. Thereafter the eldest son Major
Ravinder Nath filed a petition in Testamentary Case No.01 of 2019
on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, seeking the
grant   of   letters   of   administration   with   the   Will   dated   06.04.2011
annexed   thereto,   under   Section   276   read   with     Sections   250   and
273(b)   of   the   Indian   Succession   Act,   1925.   Upon   receipt   of
summons   in   the   said   testamentary   case,   the   daughter   Lily   Nath

5
came   up  with   the   second   transfer  petition   namely   T.P   (C)   No.2779
of   2019,   praying   for   the   transfer   of   the   testamentary   case   from
Uttarakhand   High   Court   to   the   District   Court,   Saket,   New   Delhi
where her partition suit is now pending, so that both could be tried
together.
9. Thus,   I   have   on   hand   two   transfer   petitions,   one   of   the   year
2016, filed by the eldest son seeking a transfer of the partition suit
from   the   District   Court,   Saket,   New   Delhi   to   the   District   Court,
Nainital,   Uttarakhand   and   another   of   the   year   2019   filed   by   the
plaintiff   in   the   partition   suit   seeking   the   transfer   of   the
testamentary   case   pending   on   the   file   of   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand to the District Court at Saket, to be tried together with
her partition suit. Since the eldest son Major Ravinder Nath, is the
petitioner   in   the   first   transfer   petition,   he   shall   hereinafter   be
referred to as “the petitioner” and Ms. Lily Nath shall be referred to
as “the contesting respondent”.
10. Before   I   proceed   further,   it   should   be   brought   on   record   that
the earliest of the civil suits namely C.S No.57 of 2011 filed by the
daughter Lily Nath for a decree of permanent injunction, on the file

6
of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital was dismissed for non­
prosecution on 27.11.2015. However, the second suit in C.S No.72
of   2011   filed   by   Major   Ravinder   Nath,   seeking   a   decree   of
permanent injunction is still pending on the file of the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nainital. I am not concerned with this civil suit, as
it is not the subject matter of any transfer petition.
11. The   short   question   that   arises   for   consideration   in   these
transfer petitions, is as to whether the partition suit pending on the
file   of   the   District   Court   at   Saket,   New   Delhi   from   the   year   2016
(instituted   in   2012),   should   be   transferred   to   the   District   Court,
Nainital, Uttarakhand or whether the testamentary case pending on
the   file   of   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   from   2019,   should   be
transferred   to   the   District   Court,   Saket,   so   that   it   could   be   tried
along with the partition suit already pending there.  
12. Before I take up for consideration, the rival contentions, three
important aspects have to be borne in mind. They are:­ 
(i)   The   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   at   Nainital   does   not   have
ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction,   though   it   has   jurisdiction   to
entertain   a   testamentary   case   for   the  grant   of   probate   or   letters   of

7
administration. Therefore, the partition suit pending in the District
Court,   Saket   cannot   be   transferred   to   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand,   but   can   be   transferred   only   to   a   District   Court   in
Nainital.   The   District   court,   Nainital   will   not   have   jurisdiction   to
grant   probate/letters   of   administration   in   respect   of   a   property
located outside its territorial limits, if its value exceeds Rs.10,000/­.
Per   contra ,   both   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   as   well   as   the   District
Court,   Saket,   have   jurisdiction   to   entertain   an   application   for   the
grant   of   probate/letters   of   administration   subject   to   certain
conditions/restrictions; 
(ii)   The   last   Will   and   Testament   dated   06.04.2011   set   up   by   the
eldest son Major Ravinder Nath, covers two properties, one of which
is   a   MIG   flat   promoted   by   the   Delhi   Development   Authority   at
Saket, New Delhi. The other property is a bhumidhari land lying in
Khata   No.741   measuring   an   extent   of   6.8550   hectares   in   Village
Bithoriya   No.1,   Tehsil   Haldwani,   District   Nainital,   Uttarakhand,
along   with   a   residential   house,   service   quarters   and   sheds.
Therefore  by   virtue  of  Section  264(1)  of  the  Indian   Succession  Act,
1925,   the   District   Judge,   Saket   has   jurisdiction   to   entertain   a

8
petition for the grant letters of administration, at least in respect of
the property at Delhi; and 
(iii)   The   partition   suit   was   filed   in   the  year  2012   on   the   file   of   the
High Court of Delhi and was transferred to the District Court, Saket
in   the   year   2016.   At   the   time   when   the   eldest   son   Major   Ravinder
Nath   came   up   with   T.P   (C)   No.970   of   2016,   no   proceeding   for   the
grant of letters of administration was pending in the High Court of
Uttarakhand.   Actually   the   petitioner   in   T.P   (C)   No.970   of   2016
chose to file a testamentary case in the High Court of Uttarakhand
only in January 2019, after the stay of partition suit granted in T.P
(C) No.970 of 2016 was vacated on 09.10.2018. Therefore it must be
remembered that the petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 created a
situation that could be taken advantage of by him.
13. Keeping the above background in mind, let me now look at the
grounds   on   which   the   transfer   of   the   partition   suit   from   Delhi   to
Nainital   is   sought.   In   the   transfer   petition   T.P   (C)   No.970   of   2016
the petitioner has contended : 
(i)  that he was 68 years of age (at that time), suffering from
many   diseases   and   undergoing   cardiac   care   treatment
with implanted pace maker; 

9
(ii)  that   he   had  suffered   a   paralytic   stroke   on   the   right   side
of the body and a blood clot in the brain; 
(iii)  that   the   respondents   were   already   contesting   the
mutation case in Haldwani;
(iv)  that   three   of   the   respondents   are   foreign   nationals
residing out of India; 
(v)  that the subject matter of the suit includes an immovable
property   situate   within   the  jurisdiction  of   the   competent
Court in Nainital; and 
(vi)  that   there   is   a   bar   of   jurisdiction   of   other   Courts   under
Uttar   Pradesh   Zamindari   Abolition   and   Land   Reforms
Act.
14. In addition to the grounds indicated in the transfer petition, it
is  also  contended  by  Sh.  Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,  learned  Senior
Counsel and Sh. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
that   in   a   petition   for   transfer,   the   location   and   convenience   of   the
parties,   subject   to   the   territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   Courts,   should
also   be   taken   into   account;   that   in   the   testamentary   case,   an
application   under   Section   10   CPC   was   filed,   but   before   the   High
Court   of   Uttarakhand   could   pass   orders   on   the   application   under
Section   10,   the   second   transfer   petition   came   to   be   filed;   that
testamentary   proceedings,   being   proceedings   in   rem ,   will   have

10
primacy   over   other   proceedings   and,   hence,   the   partition   suit   is
liable to be transferred; and that by virtue of Proviso (b) of Section
273   of   the   Indian   Succession   Act,   any   probate/letters   of
administration granted by the District Court at Saket will not have
effect   in   other   States,   unless   the   value   of   the   property   and   estate
affected beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs.10,000/­.
15. While   Sh.   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned   Senior   Counsel
cited   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   Ishwardeo   Narain   Singh   vs.
Smt. Kamta Devi and Others . 1
  ;   Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs.
Jasjit Singh and Others 2
; T. Venkata Narayana and Others vs.
Venkata Subbamma  (Smt.) (dead)  & Others 3
; Balbir Singh Wasu
vs.     Lakhbir   Singh   &   Others 4
,   Sh.   Manish   Kumar   learned
Counsel   relied   upon   Smt.   Rukmani   Devi   and   Others   vs.
Narendra Lal Gupta 5
.
16. In   response,   Ms.   Nitya   Ramakrishnan   and   Sh.   H.S.   Sharma,
learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondents   contended   that   the
testamentary proceedings were initiated deliberately in Uttarakhand
1    AIR 1954 SC 280
2    (1993) 2 SCC 507
3    (1996) 4 SCC 457
4    (2005) 12 SCC 503
5    (1985) 1 SCC 144

11
after seven years of the institution of the partition suit in Delhi and
that the petitioner in the first transfer petition is guilty of abuse of
the process of Court.
17. As can be seen from the rival contentions, most of them are on
factual foundation. However, one contention advanced on behalf of
the   petitioner,   is   purely   legal   and   deserves   a   deeper   scrutiny.
Therefore, I shall take up that contention first. 
18. According   to   the   petitioner,   who   is   eldest   of   the   siblings   and
who  has  set  up  a  Will,  the  proceedings  in  a  testamentary   case  are
proceedings   in rem   and that, therefore, they  will have primacy  and
that, irrespective of the fact that the testamentary proceedings were
initiated   much   after   the   institution   of   the   partition   suit,   the
partition   suit   and   not   the   testamentary   case,   is   liable   to   be
transferred.   In   support   of   these   contentions,   the   learned   counsel
appearing for the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions.   The
first   of   these   decisions   is   that   of   this   Court   in   Ishwardeo   Narain
Singh   (supra).   This   Judgment   is   relied   upon   only   for   the   limited
purpose of showing  that a Court of probate is concerned only  with
the question whether the document put forward as the last Will and

12
Testament   was   duly   executed   and   attested   in   accordance   with   law
and   whether   at   the   time   of   execution,   the   testator   was   in   a   sound
and disposing state of mind. We are not concerned in this case with
the   question   as   to   the   nature   of   the   proceedings   for   probate   or
letters   of   administration.   Therefore,   the   said   decision   is   of   no
assistance for deciding the question on hand.
19. In   Chiranjilal  Shrilal  Goenka   (supra),   the primary  question
that arose was as to whether an arbitrator appointed by this Court,
by consent of parties, would have jurisdiction to deal even with the
proceedings   for   probate.   Answering   the   question   in   the   negative,
this   Court   held   that   the   probate   Court   alone   has   been   conferred
with   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   to   grant   probate   or   letters   of
administration and that even by consent, the parties cannot confer
jurisdiction   upon   an   arbitrator   to   adjudicate   upon   the   proof   or
validity   of  the  Will.  Obviously   this  decision  is  only   on  the  question
of   jurisdiction   of   an   arbitral   tribunal   relating   to   testamentary
proceedings and not about the right of a party to seek transfer of a
proceeding,   from   one   Court   to   another,   when   both   Courts   are
claimed to have jurisdiction.

13
20. In   T.   Venkata   Narayana   (supra),   the   question   before   this
Court   was   whether   secondary   evidence   could   be   led,   in   a   suit   for
injunction, to prove an alleged Will. This Court held that a suit for
injunction   cannot   be   converted   into   a   suit   for   probation   of   a   Will
and that if the Will is to be proved according to law, it has to be by
way   of   a   probate   proceeding   in   the   Court   having   competency   and
jurisdiction   according   to   the   procedure   prescribed   in   the   Indian
Succession Act. But this decision does not lay down (and could not
have   laid   down)   any   proposition   that   all   Wills   executed   by   all
classes   of   persons   in   all   areas   throughout   the   country   require
probate/letters of administration, as we shall see later. 
21. Balbir Singh Wasu   (supra) is the only case where this Court
was   concerned   with   the   question   whether   the   proceedings   for
probate   initiated   later   in   point   of   time   than   a   suit   for   declaration
and injunction could proceed further or not. In this case, the party
who   had   first   filed   a   suit   for   declaration   and   injunction   before   the
Court   of   a   Civil   Judge,   sought   stay   of   the   probate   proceedings
initiated   by   the   opposite   party   in   the   High   Court,   later   in   point   of
time, on the basis of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The

14
High   Court   rejected   the   prayer   for   stay   on   the   ground   that   the
pendency   of   the   suit   for   declaration   will   not   bar   the   High   Court
from   entertaining   probate   proceedings.   Without   answering   the
question revolving around section 10, CPC directly, this Court held
in   Balbir   Singh   Wasu :   (i)   that   a   decision   on   the   appellant’s   civil
suit   would   not   conclude   the   probate   proceedings;   (ii)   that   the
question   whether   probate   should   be   granted   or   not   would   still   be
left to be determined by the High Court, though the decision of the
civil Court may be relevant even in those proceedings; and  (iii)  that
though   the   requirement   of   Section   213   of   the   Indian   Succession
Act,   for   an   executor   to   obtain   probate,   may   not   apply   to   all   the
areas   outside   the   presidency  towns   (or   the  notified   areas),   there   is
no   prohibition   for   an   executor   to   apply   for   probate   as   a   matter   of
prudence or convenience, even in cases where they are not covered
by Section 213.  
22. There   are   two   interesting   aspects   to   the   decision   in   Balbir
Singh   (supra). They  are:   (i)   Without deciding  the  question  whether
an   application   under   Section   10   CPC   would   lie   or   not,   this   Court
transferred   the   probate   proceedings   from   the   High   Court   to   a

15
District   Court   which   was   competent   to   entertain   probate
proceedings   and   transferred   the   suit   for   declaration   also   to   the
same   Court   so   that   both   of   them   could   be   clubbed   and   heard
together. Unfortunately, this Court omitted to  take note of  the  fact
that in cases where no probate is mandatorily required by law, the
Will could be relied upon in any civil action, even without getting it
probated.   (ii)   Balbir   Singh   followed   another   decision   of   this   court
in   Nirmala   Devi   vs.   Arun   Kumar   Gupta 6
.   It   was   a   case   where
probate proceedings were initiated in 1997 with respect to a Will of
the year 1984. A civil suit was already pending from 1987, but this
Court   merely   ordered   the   transfer   of   the   civil   suit   pending   on   the
file   of   the   sub­Judge   to   the   Court   of   the   District   Judge   where
probate   proceedings   were   pending,   so   that   both   could   be   clubbed
together and disposed of.
23. This   Court   did   not   consider   or   did   not   have   an   occasion   to
consider in any of the above decisions, the difference between cases
where a party is entitled to rely upon a Will in a judicial proceeding
even   without   getting   probate/letters   of   administration   and   cases
where   there   is   a   bar   for   the   production   of   a   Will   in   a   judicial
6    (2005) 12 SCC 505

16
proceeding   without   first   getting   probate/letters   of   administration.
The   primacy   to   be   accorded   to   probate   proceedings   would   depend
upon the category to which the case belongs.
24. Having said that, let us now take a closer look at some of the
provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
25. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is divided into 11 parts, with
some   of   the   parts   sub­divided   into   several   chapters.   Part   VI   of   the
Act   comprising   of   23   Chapters,   contains   exhaustive   provisions
relating to  “Testamentary Succession”.  Sections 57 to 191 of the Act
are included in this Part.
26. Part   IX   of   the   Act   contains   Sections   217   to   369,   divided   into
13   chapters.   Chapter   IV   of   Part   IX   contains   provisions   governing
“the   practice   in   granting   and   revoking   probates   and   letters   of
administration.”  Sections 264 to 302 are found in this Chapter. The
procedure   for   making   an   application   for   probate   or   for   letters   of
administration with the Will annexed, is provided in Section 276.
27. The   District   Judge   is   conferred   with   the   jurisdiction   to   grant
and revoke probates and letters of administration in all cases within
his   District,   under   Section   264   of   the   Act.   Section   264   reads   as

17
follows:­
“ 264.   Jurisdiction   of   District   Judge   in   granting   and
revoking probates, etc .—  (1) The   District   Judge   shall   have
jurisdiction   in   granting   and   revoking   probates   and   letters   of
administration in all cases within his district.
(2)   Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no Court in
any   local   area   beyo nd   the   limits   of   the   towns   of   Calcutta,
Madras   and   Bombay,   shall,   where   the   deceased   is   a   Hindu,
Muhammadan,   Buddhist,   Sikh   or   Jaina   or   an   exempted
person,   receive   applications   for   probate   or   letters   of
administration   until   the   State   Government   has,   by   a
notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do.”
28. It   may   be   seen   from   Sub­section   (2)   of   Section   264,   that   it
imposes a bar upon the Courts in any local area beyond the limits
of   the   towns   of   Calcutta,   Madras   and   Bombay,   from   receiving
applications for probate or letters of administration, until the State
Government,   by   a   notification   in   the   Official   Gazette,   authorized
them   so   to   do,   wherever   the   deceased   is   a   Hindu,   Muhammadan,
Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person.  But the bar under
Sub­section   (2)   has   no   application   to   cases,   to   which   Section   57
applies.
29. Section 57 of the Act reads as follows:
“ 57. Application of certain provisions of Part to a class
of   Wills   made  by  Hindus,   etc.— The   provisions   of   this  Part

18
which   are   set   out   in   Schedule   III   shall,   subject   to   the
restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply—
(a)   to   all   Wills   and   codicils   made   by   any   Hindu,   Buddhist,
Sikh   or   Jaina   on   or   after   the   first   day   of   September,   1870,
within   the   territories   which   at   the   said   date   were   subject   to
the Lieutenant­Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of
the   ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Courts   of
Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and
(b)   to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories
and   limits   so   far   as   relates   to   immoveable   property   situate
within those territories or limits; [and
(c)   to   all   Wills   and   codicils   made   by   any   Hindu,   Buddhist,
Sikh   or   Jaina   on   or   after   the   first   day   of   January,   1927,   to
which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b):] 
Provided   that   marriage   shall   not   revoke   any   such   Will   or
codicil.”
30. Schedule  III  of  the  Act  contains  a  list  of  provisions  which  are
applicable,   subject   to   certain   restrictions   and   modifications,   to   all
the Wills described in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 57.
31. The jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge in Chapter
IV of Part IX, is also exercisable by the High Court, by virtue of the
concurrent   jurisdiction   conferred   under   Section   300.   Section   300
reads as follows:
“ 300. Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court.—

19
(1)   The   High   Court   shall   have   concurrent   jurisdiction   with   the
District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred
upon the District Judge.
(2)   Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no High Court,
in exercise  of  the concurrent  jurisdiction hereby conferred  over
any   local   area   beyond   the   limits   of   the   towns   of   Calcutta,
Madras   and   Bombay   shall,   where   the   deceased   is   a   Hindu,
Muhammadan,   Buddhist,   Sikh   or   Jaina   or   an   exempted
person,   receive   applications   for   probate   or   letters   of
administration until the State Government has, by a notification
in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do.”
The bar under sub­Section (2) of Section 264 is found also in
sub­Section (2) of Section 300.
32. Part   VIII   of   the   Act   which   is   perhaps   the   smallest   among   the
several   parts   of   the   Act,   contains   two   important   provisions   in
Sections 212 and 213. They read as follows:
“ 212.   Right   to   intestate’s   property.— (1)   No   right   to   any
part of the property of a person who has died intestate can be
established   in   any   Court   of   Justice,   unless   letters   of
administration   have   first   been   granted   by   a   Court   of
competent jurisdiction.
(2)     This section shall not apply in the case of the intestacy of
a   Hindu,   Muhammadan,   Buddhist,   Sikh,   Jaina,   [Indian
Christian or Parsi].
213.   Right   as   executor   or   legatee   when   established.—
(1)   No   right   as   executor   or   legatee   can   be   established   in   any
Court   of   Justice,   unless   a   Court   of   competent   jurisdiction   in
[India] has granted probate of the Will under which the right is

20
claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the Will
or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed. 
(2)   This   section   shall   not   apply   in   the   case   of   Wills   made   by
Muhammadans [or Indian Christians], or and shall only apply
—
(i)   in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh
or Jaina where such Wills are of the classes specified in
clauses (a) and (b) of section 57; and
(ii)   in the case of Wills made by any Parsi dying, after the
commencement   of   the   Indian   Succession   (Amendment)
Act,   1962   (16   of   1962),   where   such   Wills   are   made
within   the   local   limits   of   the   [ordinary   original   civil
jurisdiction] of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and
Bombay, and where such Wills are made outside those
limits,   in   so   far   as   they   relate   to   immoveable   property
situated within those limits.]”
33. While Section 212 deals with the right to intestate’s property,
Section 213 deals with the establishment of the right as executor or
legatee under a Will.  In simple terms these two Rules can be stated
as follows: (i)   without first obtaining letters of administration from a
Court of competent jurisdiction, no right to any property of a person
other   than   a   Hindu,   Muhammadan,   Buddhist,   Sikh,   Jaina,   Indian
Christian   or   Parsi,   who   has   died   intestate,   can   be   established   in
any court of justice;  (ii)   no right as executor or legatee under a Will
(other   than   a   Will   made   by   a   Muhammadan   or   Indian   Christian)
can be established in any Court of justice unless probate of the Will

21
or letters of administration with the Will annexed, has been granted
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
34. But   the   second   Rule   stated   above   which   is   found   in   Section
213, is applicable only:   (i)    in the case of Wills made by any Hindu,
Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, if those Wills are of the classes specified in
Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57; and  (ii)    in the case of Wills made
by any Parsi dying after the commencement of the Amendment Act
16   of   1962,   if   such   Wills   are   made   within   the   local   limits   of   the
ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Courts   at   Calcutta,
Madras   and   Bombay   and   in   case   such   Wills   have   been   made
outside those limits, in so far as they relate to immovable property
situate within those limits.
35. A   cumulative   reading   of   Sections   57,   213   and   264   would
show:  (i)    that a person claiming to be an executor or legatee under
a Will cannot rely upon the Will, in any proceeding before a Court of
justice,   unless   he   has   obtained   probate   (if   an   executor   has   been
appointed)   or   letters   of   administration   with   the   Will   annexed,   if
such   a   Will   has   been   executed   by   certain   classes   of   persons;   and
(ii)   that the jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration

22
vests only in courts located within the towns of Calcutta, Madras or
Bombay   and   the   Courts   in   any   local   area   notified   by   the   State
Government in the Official Gazette.
36. Therefore,   what   follows  is   that:   (i)   unless   the   testator  belongs
to any of the classes of persons specified in the Act; and   (ii)   unless
the   Will   is   made   or   some   of   the   properties   covered   by   the   Will   are
located,   within   the   local   limits   of   a   notified   area,   there   is   no
necessity  for  an  executor  or  a  legatee under  a  Will  to seek probate
or   letters   of   administration.   In   fact,   the   decision   in   Balbir   Singh
Wasu   (supra)   did   not   take   note   of   the   bar   under   Section   264(2)
when   it   opined   in   general   terms   in   Paragraph   5   of   the   judgment
that   “ We   do   not   read   Section   213   as   prohibiting   the   executor   for
applying   for  probate  as   a  matter  of   prudence  or  convenience   to  the
courts   in   other   parts   of   the   country   not   covered   by   Section
213 ”.
37. By   virtue   of   Section   213(2)(i)   read   with   Clauses   (a)   and   (b)   of
Section 57, the mandatory requirement to seek probate or letters of
administration for establishing a right as executor or legatee under

23
a Will, is applicable only to Wills   made   by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh
or   Jaina   within   the   local   limits   of   the   ordinary   original   civil
jurisdiction   of   certain   High   Courts   and   to   Wills   made   outside
those   territories,   to   the   extent   they   cover   immovable   property
situate within those territories. Therefore, there is no prohibition for
a   person   whose   case   falls   outside   the   purview   of   these   provisions,
from producing, relying upon and claiming  a right under  a Will, in
any   proceeding   instituted   by   others   including   the   other   legal   heirs
for partition or other reliefs.
38. In   the   case   on   hand,   the   petitioner   Ravinder   Nath   himself
proceeded   (i)   first to have mutation effected in the revenue records
and   (ii)   then   to   file   a   suit   in   O.S.No.72   of   2011   on   the   file   of   the
Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Nainital,   for   a   decree   of   permanent
injunction,   on   the   basis   of   the   very   same   last   Will   and   Testament
dated   06.04.2011   of   his   father,   without   seeking   letters   of
administration.  He did  not   think  that  Section  213(1)  was  a  bar   for
him   to   establish   his   right   as   a   legatee   under   the   Will,   without
obtaining letters of administration.

24
39. After having  done so, the petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016
chose to file Testamentary Case No.01 of 2019 after 8 years of first
shooting   a   claim   under   the   Will   and   that   too   after   the   vacation   of
the  stay  of further  proceedings in  the partition  suit by  order  dated
09.10.2018.   Therefore,   I   cannot   allow   the   petitioner   in   T.P   (C)   No.
970 of 2016 to make this Court a  fait accompli.
40. The  partition  suit, which  is pending   on  the  file  of the  District
Court, Saket is actually 8 years old, as it was instituted on the file
of the High Court of Delhi in September, 2012 and was transferred
to the District Court in 2016. The written statement in the said suit
was   filed   by   Major   Ravinder   Nath   way   back   in   November,   2012,
when   the   suit   was   pending   in   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   as   C.S
No.2745   of   2012.   In   Paragraph   8g   of   the   written   statement,   the
petitioner  has  pleaded the  execution of  the  disputed  Will. The  true
copy   of   the   Will   is   stated   to   have   been   annexed   as   D­1/5,   to   the
written   statement.   Therefore,   obviously   Major   Ravinder   Nath   was
convinced that there was no bar for him to establish his right as a
legatee   under   the   will,   even   without   first   obtaining   letters   of
administration.   Hence,   his   subsequent   act   of   filing   a   testamentary

25
case before the High Court of Uttarakhand, is nothing but a ruse to
take   advantage   of   the   general   proposition   of   law   that   probate
proceedings   are   proceedings   in   rem   and   that   they   should   have
primacy.   This   argument   is   available   only   to   a   person   who   is
disabled by virtue of Section 213(1), from relying upon a Will in any
proceeding,   without   first   obtaining   probate/letters   of
administration.   Therefore,   the   legal   contention   raised   on   behalf   of
the   petitioner   in   T.P   (C)   No.970   of   2016   that   the   partition   suit
should   follow   the   testamentary   case,   is   liable   to   be   rejected   in   the
facts and circumstances of this case.
41. In   fact,   the   petitioner   in   T.P   (C)   No.970   of   2016   is   not   even
helping himself by resorting to this. After having claimed way back
in   November,   2012   that   there   was   a   Will,   he   chose   to   file   the
testamentary proceedings only in January 2019, overlooking Article
137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and certain decisions of this Court.
I am not going into those details, as it may prejudice his case.
42. Relying   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Smt.   Rukmani
Devi and Others   vs.    Narendra Lal Gupta 7
  , it was contended by
Mr.   Manish   Kumar,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   that   by
7    (1985) 1 SCC 144

26
virtue   of   Proviso   (b)   of   Section   273   of   the   Indian   Succession   Act,
1925,   any   letters   of   administration   granted   by   the   District   Court,
Saket   cannot   have   effect   in   other   States   unless   the   value   of   the
property  affected by the grant and located beyond the limits of the
State, does not exceed Rs.10,000/­. 
43. But this argument is one of convenience. Nothing prevented the
petitioner   from   filing   the   testamentary   proceedings   in   the   High
Court of Delhi by taking advantage of Proviso (a) of Section 273 and
seeking   the   withdrawal   of   the   suit   for   partition   from   the   District
Court,   Saket   to   the   High   Court   to   be   tried   together.   Section   273
reads as follows:
“ 273.   Conclusiveness   of   probate   or   letters   of
administration. —Probate   or   letters   of   administration   shall
have   effect   over   all   the   property   and   estate,   movable   or
immovable, of the deceased, throughout the State in which the
same   is   or   are   granted,   and   shall   be   conclusive   as   to   the
representative title against all debtors of the deceased, and all
persons   holding   property   which   belongs   to   him,   and   shall
afford   full   indemnity  to   all   debtors,   paying   their  debts   and   all
persons   delivering   up   such   property   to   the   person   to   whom
such probate or letters of administration have been granted: 
Provided that probates and letters of administration granted—
(a)   by a High Court, or

27
(b)   by   a   District   Judge,   where   the   deceased   at   the   time   of   his
death had a fixed place of abode situate within the jurisdiction
of   such   Judge,   and   such   Judge   certifies   that   the   value   of   the
property and estate affected beyond the limits of the State does
not exceed ten thousand rupees, 
shall,   unless   otherwise   directed   by   the   grant,   have   like   effect
throughout the other States
Therefore,   the   petitioner,   taking   advantage   of   the   pendency   of   the
partition suit from 2012 to 2016, could have filed the testamentary
proceeding in the High Court of Delhi itself and relied upon Proviso
(a) of section 273, instead of now relying upon Proviso (b) of Section
273. 
44. Having dealt with the legal contention, let me now move on to
the factual basis on which transfer of the partition suit is sought. It
is claimed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a senior  citizen suffering  from a host of health issues.
The   attesters   are   also   not   residents   of   Delhi.   Therefore,   he   argued
that   at   least   the   convenience   of   the   parties   may   have   to   be   taken
into account.  
45. But   in   these   days   of   virtual   hearings,   the   location   of   the
parties   is   hardly   a   matter   of   concern.   In   fact,   an   application   in

28
I.A.No.130939 of 2020 has been moved by the petitioner, seeking a
direction   to   examine   one   of   the   attesters   either   through   video
conferencing or through court appointed commissioner, as he is 74
years   of   age,   having   a   lot   of   medical   issues   and   has   also   tested
positive for COVID­19.
46. The very fact that even according to the petitioner, the attester
can   be   examined   through   video   conference   or   court   appointed
commissioner would show that the place where the proceedings are
pending, is immaterial.
47. The   fact   that   3   out   of   the   surviving   5   children   are   citizens   of
other countries residing out of India and that therefore they cannot
have any objection to the proceedings being tried in Uttarakhand, is
not   acceptable.   It   would   have   been   open   to   the   petitioner   to   raise
such a contention, had he chosen to make the first strike by filing
the   testamentary   proceedings   in   2011   or   2012.   He   did   not   do   so.
Therefore,   even   on   facts,   I   find   no   ground   to   order   the   transfer   of
the   partition  suit  to   the  District  Court,  Nainital  and  hence, T.P  (C)
No. 970 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed.

29
48. In so far as the second transfer petition is concerned, the relief
sought   therein   is   to   transfer   the   testamentary   case   pending   in   the
High Court of Uttarakhand to the District Court, Saket, Delhi. Since
the   Will   set   up   by   the   petitioner   covers   properties   located   both   in
Nainital and Delhi, both these courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
But   in   view   of   Proviso   (b)   to   Section   273,   letters   of   administration
granted   by   a   District   Court   cannot   have   validity   in   respect   of   a
property located outside the State, if its value exceeds Rs. 10,000/­.
However,   this   problem   can   be   resolved   by   ordering   the   transfer   of
the   testamentary  case to   the  High  Court  of  Delhi  and  ordering  the
transfer of the partition suit from the District Court, Saket back to
the High Court of Delhi.
49. Therefore,   the   Transfer   Petitions   are   disposed   of   to   the
following effect:­
(i) T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 is dismissed;
(ii) T.P (C) No.2779 of 2019 is allowed and the Testamentary
Case   No.01   of   2019   pending   on   the   file   of   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand is ordered to be transferred to the file of the High
Court of Delhi;

30
(iii) The partition suit in C.S No. 126 of 2016 pending on the
file of the Additional District Court, Saket at Delhi shall stand
transferred to the High Court of Delhi and clubbed along with
the   testamentary   proceeding   and   taken   up   together   for
disposal.   Considering   that   the   partition   suit   is   about   8   years
old,   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   may   consider   giving   priority   of
listing.   The   parties   are   at   liberty   to   move   applications   for
examination   of   the   witnesses   including   the   attesters   of   the
Will,   either   through   Video   Conference   or   through   Court
appointed   Commissioners   and   applications   for   such   reliefs
may be considered by the High Court favourably.
(iv)   The parties shall bear their respective costs.
.…….. .......................... J.
   (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
New Delhi;
February 12,  2021.