Orissa High Court reaffirms that probate is not required for wills executed in former princely state territories under Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, binding on revenue authorities in related mutation proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/3689/2025 of ANSHUMAN APAT Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010080642025 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on revenue authorities; reaffirms established law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Succession and revenue mutation law |
| Questions of Law | Whether probate is necessary for wills executed in ex-princely state districts—and thus mutation entry—under Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that wills executed in territories outside those specified in Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (so-called “Gadajat Wills”) do not require probate before mutation. Revenue authorities and Tahasildars in former ex-princely state districts may proceed on un-probated wills. However, if any dispute as to genuineness or title arises during mutation proceedings, the authority must drop the petition and direct parties to civil courts. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on a consistent line of Orissa High Court decisions holding that “Gadajat Wills” do not require probate; Government of Odisha Letter No.23734/13.08.2019 modifying Letter No.16449/07.05.2018; principles that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide substantive title or genuineness of wills. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s grandfather bequeathed multiple plots in Champua Tahasil by Will No.03 dated 06.02.2004. After the testator’s death on 02.10.2008, the petitioner applied for mutation before the Tahasildar, who dropped the petition by order dated 08.12.2023 on the ground that the will was un-probated. The petitioner challenged that order by writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. |
| Citations | 1972(2) C.W.R. 1451; AIR 1973 Orissa 112; 48(1979) CLT 211; 2008(I) OLR 729; 2009(II) CLR 155; 2012(II) OLR 394; 2015(II) CLR 1075; 2015(II) OLR 1025; 2023(I) CLR 621; W.P.(C) Nos. 24927/2021, 33187/2021, 5216/2023; Govt Letter No.16449/07.05.2018; Govt Letter No.23734/13.08.2019 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Revenue authorities and Tahasildars in ex-princely state districts of Odisha |
| Follows | Amrutlal Majhi v. Japi Sahuani (1972(2) C.W.R. 1451); Balaram Tripathy v. Lokanath Tripathy (AIR 1973 Orissa 112); Mst. Radha Hota v. Dutika Satpathy (48(1979) CLT 211) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that “Gadajat Wills” executed in former ex-princely state territories do not require probate for mutation under Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act.
- Confirms that revenue authorities and Tahasildars may entertain mutation applications on the basis of un-probated wills in these districts.
- Emphasizes that any challenge to the genuineness of a will or title must be taken to a civil court; mutation proceedings must be dropped if such disputes arise.
- Highlights Government of Odisha Letter No.23734 dated 13.08.2019, which modified earlier restrictions in Letter No.16449 dated 07.05.2018 regarding probate requirements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- No Probate for Gadajat Wills: Wills executed in areas outside Section 57’s specified territories (ex-princely state districts) are exempt from probate for purposes of mutation.
- Line of Precedent and Government Directive: The Court relied on multiple Orissa High Court decisions and Government Letter No.23734/13.08.2019 (modifying No.16449/07.05.2018) to establish that revenue authorities may process un-probated wills.
- Limit on Revenue Jurisdiction: Revenue authorities may act on un-probated wills but must cease mutation proceedings if disputes on genuineness or title emerge, referring parties to civil courts.
- Civil Court Exclusivity: Substantive issues regarding title and will validity exceed revenue jurisdiction and are exclusively for civil courts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The will dated 06.02.2004 was executed in Keonjhar (an ex-princely area) and thus did not require probate under Section 57.
- The Tahasildar erred in dropping Mutation Case No.866 of 2023 for lack of probate.
Opposite Parties (State)
- Relied on Revenue & Disaster Management Department Letter No.16449 dated 07.05.2018 directing rejection of un-probated wills for mutation.
Factual Background
Chakradhar Apat, recorded owner of multiple plots in Champua Tahasil, Keonjhar, executed Will No.03 on 06.02.2004 in favour of his grandson (the petitioner). After the testator’s death on 02.10.2008, the petitioner applied to the Tahasildar for mutation of the bequeathed properties. By order dated 08.12.2023, the Tahasildar dropped the mutation petition on the ground that the will lacked probate. The petitioner challenged that order by writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 57, Indian Succession Act, 1925: The Court interpreted Section 57’s territorial clauses to mean that probate is not required for wills executed or concerning properties in former ex-princely state territories (“Gadajat Wills”).
- Government Letters:
- Letter No.16449/07.05.2018 initially directed rejection of un-probated wills.
- Letter No.23734/13.08.2019 modified this in respect of Mayurbhanj (and by analogy other ex-princely areas) to permit mutation on un-probated wills.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 1972(2) C.W.R. 1451 (Amrutlal Majhi v. Japi Sahuani)
- AIR 1973 Orissa 112 (Balaram Tripathy v. Lokanath Tripathy)
- 48(1979) CLT 211 (Mst. Radha Hota v. Dutika Satpathy)
- 2008(I) OLR 729 (Sailabala Satpathy v. Parbati Satpathy)
- 2009(II) CLR 155 (Aparna Sahu v. Raghunath Biswal)
- 2012(II) OLR 394 (Kunjabihari Sahu v. State of Orissa)
- 2015(II) CLR 1075 & 2015(II) OLR 1025 (Ritesh Kumar Patel v. Kishore Chandra Patel)
- 2023(I) CLR 621 (Amrita Pandey v. State of Orissa)
- W.P.(C) Nos. 24927/2021, 33187/2021, 5216/2023 (Subrat Purohit; Ratnamala Mishra; Fatik Bala)
- Govt Letter No.16449/07.05.2018 (Revenue & Disaster Management Department)
- Govt Letter No.23734/13.08.2019 (Collector, Mayurbhanj)