Yes – the Orissa High Court affirmed that a purchaser named in a registered sale deed holds sufficient interest to be added as a necessary party in probate-converted suits, upholding Supreme Court precedents on probate jurisdiction and procedural notice. This decision binds subordinate civil courts in Odisha and is persuasive for other jurisdictions addressing party-impleadment in will-probation cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CMP/101/2018 of TILOTTAMA JENA Vs SANDHYARANI BRAHMA |
| CNR | ODHC010123932018 |
| Date of Registration | 24-01-2018 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court, Cuttack |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Probate law; Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a purchaser of properties covered under the will can be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in contested probate proceedings converted to a suit. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that a person with any interest in the estate of the deceased may be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, since Section 283(1)(c)&(2) of the Succession Act mandates general citation to all claimants. Section 213 of the Succession Act bars establishment of rights under the will until probate is obtained but does not preclude participation in proceedings. Supreme Court precedents (G. Gopal v. C. Baskar) recognize that even a slight interest suffices to contest probate. The impugned order impleading the purchaser was therefore correctly upheld. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners filed a probate application under Section 276 of the Succession Act for a will dated 13.08.2001, which was converted into O.S. No.2/2016 when opposed. Third-party Gangadhar Debata sought impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, claiming purchase of a portion of the property by sale deed dated 28.02.1977. The trial court allowed impleadment by order dated 02.01.2018; the plaintiffs challenged it under Article 227. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All civil courts subordinate to the Orissa High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and civil tribunals in India |
| Follows | G. Gopal v. C. Baskar (2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 784 SC) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A purchaser named in a registered sale deed covering property under the contested will may be impleaded as a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in probate-converted suits.
- Section 283(1)(c)&(2) IA 1925 requires general citation to all claimants, reinforcing the duty to notify third-party interest-holders.
- Section 213 IA 1925 bars asserting rights under a will until probate is granted but does not prevent impleadment or participation in probate proceedings.
- This decision reaffirms G. Gopal v. C. Baskar’s recognition of “even slight interest” as sufficient for contesting probate.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Lodha limited probate jurisdiction to genuineness of the will, not title disputes.
- Orissa HC in Aparna Dhir Singh held that a purchaser should not be impleaded in pure probate proceedings.
- In G. Gopal v. C. Baskar, the Apex Court clarified that any person with even a slight interest in the estate may file caveat and contest probate.
- Section 283(1)(c)&(2) IA 1925 imposes a duty on the probate court to issue general citation to all persons claiming interest.
- Section 213 IA 1925 bars establishment of rights under the will until probate or letters of administration are obtained but does not bar impleadment.
- Applying these principles, the trial court correctly allowed the sale-deed purchaser’s petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiffs):
- A purchaser has no locus standi in probate proceedings, which are confined to determining the genuineness of the will.
- Title disputes over property covered by the will must be litigated separately; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be invoked to implead a purchaser.
Opposite Party No.5 (Gangadhar Debata):
- He acquired a 0.10-dec sale-deed portion of the testator’s property in 1977, well before the 2001 will.
- His interest under the registered sale deed makes him a necessary party for proper adjudication of the probate-converted suit.
Factual Background
Petitioners moved for probate of a will executed on 13.08.2001 under Section 276 IA 1925, which became O.S. No.2/2016 after contest. Gangadhar Debata filed an Order 1 Rule 10 CPC petition on 25.10.2017 to be impleaded as a defendant, claiming purchase of a portion of the property by a sale deed dated 28.02.1977. The trial court allowed impleadment by order dated 02.01.2018. The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 283(1)(c)&(2) IA 1925: Requires the probate court to issue citation calling on all persons claiming any interest in the deceased’s estate to appear before grant of probate or letters of administration.
- Section 213 IA 1925: Bars establishment of any right under the will by executor or legatee unless probate or letters of administration have been obtained; this does not prevent a claimant’s impleadment.
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Allows the court to add necessary parties, here applied to a purchaser with real interest in the estate.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed: The decision follows Supreme Court authority in G. Gopal v. C. Baskar on caveator standing and impleadment in probate proceedings.