A landmark ruling from the Bombay High Court has clarified that consent terms filed in testamentary suits are not mere private agreements but binding undertakings to the court, enforceable as judicial orders. This decision reinforces the sanctity of settlements in succession disputes and provides clarity to practitioners navigating probate and caveator proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose over the estate of Kishan Chunilal Goradia, deceased, with Plaintiffs Rajesh Premji Shah and others seeking probate of a will, while the Caveator, Deepak Kishan Goradia, contested its validity. The matter involved complex family dynamics, competing claims to immovable property, and allegations of undue influence. The caveator had filed a caveat under Section 219 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to block the grant of probate pending resolution of his objections.
Procedural History
- 2023: Caveat filed by Deepak Kishan Goradia in Petition No. 3075 of 2023
- 2024: Testamentary Suit No. 85 of 2024 initiated by Plaintiffs for probate
- 2025: Daughter of the deceased, Sadhana Naimish Shah, filed an affidavit withdrawing her interim application and caveat support
- January 2026: Parties filed comprehensive Consent Terms after prolonged negotiations
Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs sought probate of the will and declaration of their entitlement to the estate. The Caveator sought to invalidate the will and claim a share under intestacy. Both parties ultimately sought a mutually agreed resolution without litigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether consent terms filed in a testamentary suit, signed by all parties and their advocates, constitute a binding judicial order enforceable by the court, or whether they require formal incorporation into a decree to be effective.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The Plaintiffs contended that the 22-page Consent Terms, signed by all parties and their advocates in open court, reflected a final and voluntary settlement. They relied on Smt. Sushila Devi v. Smt. Kamla Devi to argue that courts have consistently upheld such agreements as final dispositions, especially in family disputes where litigation is costly and emotionally draining. They emphasized that the court had recorded the parties’ personal affirmation of execution and that the terms were comprehensive, covering all assets, liabilities, and future obligations.
For the Respondent
The Caveator did not oppose the consent terms but sought assurance that the terms would be treated as a court order, not merely a private contract. His counsel acknowledged the settlement’s finality but requested explicit judicial endorsement to prevent future challenges, particularly from third parties or heirs not party to the agreement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of consent terms in testamentary jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that when parties file consent terms in open court, with all signatories present and identified, and the court records their affirmation, such terms are not merely contractual but constitute undertakings to the court itself.
"The Consent Terms are not a private arrangement between the parties; they are an undertaking given to this Court, recorded in open court, and signed by all parties and their advocates. This Court has the inherent power to enforce such undertakings as if they were orders of the Court."
The Court distinguished K. Srinivasan v. K. Sivakumar where consent terms were held unenforceable due to lack of court record, noting that here, the parties appeared personally, their identities were verified, and the terms were filed as part of the judicial record. The Court further noted that the withdrawal of the caveat and interim application by the deceased’s daughter reinforced the finality of the settlement. The court’s role, it held, is not to adjudicate when parties have resolved their dispute, but to give effect to their agreement as a judicial order.
The Verdict
The Plaintiffs prevailed. The Court held that consent terms filed in open court in a testamentary suit, with all parties present and affirming execution, constitute binding undertakings enforceable as court orders. The suit, caveat, and interim application were disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms without the need for a separate decree.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Terms Are Judicial Orders
- Practitioners must ensure consent terms are filed in open court with all parties personally present and identified
- Oral affirmations recorded in the transcript are sufficient; no separate decree is required
- Failure to record presence or affirmation may render terms unenforceable as court orders
Caveats Cannot Survive Final Settlement
- Once consent terms are accepted, any pending caveat or interim application must be withdrawn or dismissed
- Courts will not entertain fresh challenges to settled estates unless fraud or coercion is independently proven
- The withdrawal of a caveat by a co-heir strengthens the finality of the settlement
Enforcement Is Immediate
- Non-compliance with consent terms can be addressed through contempt proceedings
- Granting authorities (e.g., revenue departments) must act on court directions without delay
- Parties should obtain a certified copy of the order disposing the suit in terms of consent terms for third-party enforcement
