The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that probate proceedings are strictly limited to verifying the authenticity of a Will and cannot determine ownership or title to property. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside a probate grant made without notice to interested parties, emphasizing that even remote claimants must be given an opportunity to contest.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on a residential property covered by Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) No. 70/2003 located at Electric Veng, Aizawl. The property was acquired in 1999 by Sri Biakchhunga and his third wife, Smt. Laldangliani. Sri Biakchhunga had three wives; the respondent, Sh. C. Lalremliana, is his son from his first marriage. The appellants, Lalhlimpuii and Lalbiakkimi, are nieces of Smt. Laldangliani.
Key Facts
- Sri Biakchhunga died on 21.11.2019.
- Smt. Laldangliani applied for Heirship Certificate No. 115/2020 on 15.12.2019, which was granted by order dated 03.02.2020.
- The LSC was mutated in her name on the basis of the Heirship Certificate.
- Smt. Laldangliani requested the appellants to reside with her after Sri Biakchhunga’s death; they moved in and continued residing there.
- The respondent served a legal notice on 15.08.2022, alleging that Smt. Laldangliani had illegally obtained the Heirship Certificate and demanding surrender of the LSC.
- Smt. Laldangliani died on 03.08.2022, leaving a will bequeathing the property to the appellants.
- The respondent filed an application for probate of Sri Biakchhunga’s Will dated 22.10.2019 on 31.08.2022.
- Probate Case No. 24/2022 was registered on the same date.
- The Trial Court fixed 14.10.2022 for appearance but did not issue notice to the appellants.
- The Probate Court granted probate to the respondent by order dated 23.11.2022.
- The appellants filed a first appeal (RFA No. 8/2023), which was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on 06.10.2023.
- The appellants filed a second appeal (RSA/8/2023) before the Gauhati High Court on 22.12.2023.
Procedural History
- 1999: Property acquired by Sri Biakchhunga and Smt. Laldangliani.
- 21.11.2019: Death of Sri Biakchhunga.
- 15.12.2019: Application for Heirship Certificate filed by Smt. Laldangliani.
- 03.02.2020: Heirship Certificate granted; LSC mutated in her name.
- 15.08.2022: Legal notice served by respondent on Smt. Laldangliani.
- 03.08.2022: Death of Smt. Laldangliani; property bequeathed to appellants.
- 31.08.2022: Probate application filed by respondent.
- 14.10.2022: Date fixed for appearance in Probate Case No. 24/2022; no notice issued to appellants.
- 23.11.2022: Probate granted by Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl.
- 06.10.2023: First Appeal dismissed by Lower Appellate Court.
- 22.12.2023: Second Appeal filed before Gauhati High Court.
- 11.06.2024: Appeal admitted on three substantial questions of law.
- 27.03.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
- Argued that they were interested parties in the estate due to their residence, possession, and inheritance from Smt. Laldangliani.
- Contended that the Probate Court’s failure to issue notice violated principles of natural justice.
- Asserted that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding title.
For the Respondent
- Claimed to be the sole legal heir of Sri Biakchhunga under the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014.
- Argued that the appellants were strangers with no claim to the property.
- Asserted that a Will supersedes all other claims and notice is unnecessary.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought: (1) setting aside of the probate order dated 23.11.2022, (2) setting aside of the First Appellate Court order dated 06.10.2023, and (3) remand of the matter for fresh adjudication with notice to all interested parties.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a Probate Court is obligated to issue notice to persons with any interest in the estate, even if remote, before granting probate? and (2) Whether a First Appellate Court in a probate appeal may determine questions of title to the property?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on G. Gopal v. C. Baskar & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 489, which held that any person with an interest in the estate, however slight, must be given an opportunity to contest probate. They further cited Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 and Keshab Prasad Shah v. Ram Pujan Shah & Ors. (2001) 3 GLT 436 to argue that probate courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title. They emphasized that possession and residence, coupled with inheritance from Smt. Laldangliani, constituted sufficient interest to warrant notice.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that under Section 31 of the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014, a valid Will overrides all other claims. He argued that the appellants had no legal or proprietary interest in the property, were merely occupants, and that notice would serve no purpose. He asserted that the probate court’s grant was valid and that the First Appellate Court’s findings on title were incidental and not erroneous.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that probate proceedings are summary in nature and confined to determining the genuineness and due execution of a Will. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of a Probate Court is exclusive but limited.
"The Court of Probate has exclusive jurisdiction in granting probate but a Probate Court does not decide any question of title."
The Court noted that the appellants were in continuous possession of the property since 2019, had been residing there with the consent of Smt. Laldangliani, and stood to inherit from her upon her death. The respondent’s own legal notice of 15.08.2022 acknowledged their presence and claimed they had no right to remain - thereby implicitly recognizing their interest.
The Court held that G. Gopal squarely applies: even a remote interest entitles a person to notice and opportunity to contest. The failure to serve notice was a violation of natural justice and rendered the probate proceeding defective.
Further, the Court found that the First Appellate Court had committed a jurisdictional error by determining that the appellants had no title to the property. The Court cited Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka and its own precedent in Keshab Prasad Shah to reiterate that title disputes must be resolved in a civil suit, not in probate proceedings.
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the Will rendered notice unnecessary. It held that the existence of a Will does not extinguish the rights of other interested parties to contest its validity or claim an interest in the estate.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The orders dated 23.11.2022 (granting probate) and 06.10.2023 (dismissing the first appeal) are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl for fresh adjudication of the probate application. The Court directed all parties, including the appellants, to appear before the Probate Court on 20.04.2026, where the matter shall be heard afresh with notice to all interested persons. The Probate Court is directed to confine its inquiry to the genuineness and due execution of the Will and shall not adjudicate title.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Mandatory for All Interested Parties
- Practitioners must now ensure that in every probate petition, a list of all persons with any conceivable interest - including heirs, legatees, occupants, or those holding heirship certificates - is filed and served.
- Failure to serve notice, even to remote claimants, renders the probate order liable to be set aside.
Probate Courts Cannot Decide Title
- Any claim to ownership, possession, or title must be raised in a separate civil suit.
- Courts must not conflate probate jurisdiction with title adjudication; doing so invites reversal on appeal.
Possession Alone Can Constitute Interest
- Continuous possession of property, even without title, coupled with familial ties or inheritance from a deceased owner, qualifies as an interest warranting notice.
- Legal notices acknowledging presence of occupants are strong evidence of interest.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Probate courts must strictly follow procedural safeguards under the Indian Succession Act and CPC.
- Appellate courts must intervene where jurisdictional boundaries are crossed, even if the outcome appears favorable to one party.
