The Bombay High Court has clarified that competing testamentary petitions over the same will must be consolidated, and probate must be granted to all named executors who consent to act jointly. In a significant procedural directive, the Court also imposed strict timelines on government offices for refunding court fees, addressing systemic delays that frustrate litigants.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Three testamentary petitions were filed concerning the last will and testament dated 31.10.2010 of Late Jamnadas Velji Thakker (Deceased). Testamentary Petition No. 2503 of 2026 was filed by Bijesh Jamnadas Thakker, one of the two legal heirs and an executor named in the will, seeking probate of the original will. Testamentary Petition No. 3258 of 2025 was filed by Bayjool Desai, another executor, seeking probate of a photocopy of the same will, pending production of the original. A third petition was filed by Mukesh Talsania, the third executor, before the Principal Civil Judge, Gondal, under C.M.A. No. 13 of 2015.
Key Facts
- The deceased died leaving a will dated 31.10.2010, naming three executors: Bijesh Thakker, Bayjool Desai, and Mukesh Talsania
- Bijesh Thakker and Bayjool Desai are the only legal heirs of the deceased
- The original will is in the custody of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court, registered as Will No. 920 of 2026
- All three executors have accepted the validity of the will
- The will was duly attested by two witnesses, whose affidavits were filed
- A joint caveat (Caveat (L) No. 22763 of 2025) was filed by Bijesh Thakker and Mukesh Talsania against Bayjool Desai’s petition on 21.07.2025
Procedural History
- 31.10.2010: Execution of the last will and testament
- 2025: Testamentary Petition No. 3258 of 2025 filed by Bayjool Desai seeking probate of photocopy
- 21.07.2025: Joint caveat filed by Bijesh Thakker and Mukesh Talsania in TP No. 3258 of 2025
- 2025: C.M.A. No. 13 of 2015 pending before Principal Civil Judge, Gondal, filed by Mukesh Talsania
- 08.05.2026: Hearing before Bombay High Court (Division Bench)
The Parties' Positions
- Bijesh Thakker (Petitioner in TP No. 2503 of 2026): Sought probate of the original will and consolidation of all proceedings
- Bayjool Desai (Petitioner in TP No. 3258 of 2025): Sought probate of the photocopy pending production of original, but agreed to join as co-petitioner
- Mukesh Talsania: Initially filed separate petition in Gondal, but agreed to withdraw and join the Bombay High Court proceeding
Relief Sought
- Grant of probate of the original will to all executors jointly
- Withdrawal of competing petitions and caveats
- Refund of court fees paid in TP No. 3258 of 2025
- Direction to government offices to expedite refund of court fees within stipulated timelines
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether multiple testamentary petitions concerning the same will may proceed independently, or whether the court must consolidate them and grant probate jointly to all consenting executors under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through learned counsel, argued that under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, probate is a single grant to one or more executors. Where multiple executors are named and all consent to act, the court must consolidate proceedings to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The original will is already in court custody, rendering the photocopy petition redundant.
For the Respondent
The respondents, including Bayjool Desai and Mukesh Talsania, did not oppose consolidation. Their advocates confirmed on record that their clients wished to join TP No. 2503 of 2026 as co-petitioners and withdraw all competing applications, thereby supporting the petitioner’s request for judicial economy.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the original will had been duly proved through the affidavits of the attesting witnesses and was in the custody of the Court. The Court noted that Section 276 permits probate to be granted to one or more executors jointly, and that the law discourages parallel proceedings over the same testamentary instrument.
"Where all executors named in a will consent to act together and the original will is produced, there is no legal or practical justification for maintaining multiple petitions. The object of probate is to establish the validity of the will and confer authority on the executors, not to create competing forums."
The Court further held that the joint caveat filed in TP No. 3258 of 2025 was unnecessary once all parties agreed to consolidate. The Court emphasized that the existence of a separate proceeding before the Principal Civil Judge, Gondal, created jurisdictional conflict and procedural inefficiency.
The Court also took judicial notice of systemic delays in court fee refunds, citing repeated complaints from litigants. It noted that despite orders for refund being passed by the Registry, delays of over a year were common due to bureaucratic inertia in the Collector of Stamps and Pay and Accounts Department.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted probate of the original will dated 31.10.2010 to Bijesh Thakker, Bayjool Desai, and Mukesh Talsania jointly as co-executors in Testamentary Petition No. 2503 of 2026. Testamentary Petition No. 3258 of 2025 was dismissed, with refund of court fees to be processed within two weeks of submission of the refund certificate. The Collector of Stamps must issue the refund within four weeks of receiving the refund certificate, and the Pay and Accounts Department at Bandra must process the payment within four weeks of receiving the Collector’s request. All competing proceedings, including C.M.A. No. 13 of 2015 and Caveat (L) No. 22763 of 2025, were ordered to be withdrawn unconditionally by 19.06.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consolidation Is Mandatory for Joint Executors
- Practitioners must file a single testamentary petition when all executors consent to act jointly
- Competing petitions for the same will must be withdrawn or consolidated at the earliest opportunity
- Courts will not permit parallel proceedings in different forums over identical wills
Court Fee Refund Timelines Are Now Legally Enforceable
- Refund certificates issued by the High Court Registry must be acted upon within four weeks by the Collector of Stamps
- The Pay and Accounts Department must process refunds within four weeks of receiving the Collector’s request
- Failure to comply may attract contempt proceedings
- Litigants may now cite this order to demand compliance in other pending refund matters
Caveats Must Be Withdrawn Upon Consensus
- Caveats filed against co-executors who later agree to join proceedings are rendered otiose
- Courts will not entertain caveats once parties reach mutual agreement on probate
- Filing caveats to delay proceedings may be viewed as an abuse of process
