RAVINDER NATH AGARWALversusYOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.

                          [2021] 3 S.C.R. 881                              881


                  RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL                                    A
                                   v.
             YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.
              (Transfer Petition (Civil) No.970 Of 2016)
                        FEBRUARY 12, 2021                                  B
                 [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
       Transfer Petition – Testamentary proceedings were initiated
much after the partition suit – Two transfer petitions filed seeking
transfer of partition suit from Delhi to Nainital, Uttarakhand and
                                                                           C
of testamentary case from Uttarakhand to Delhi – Held: Petitioner
was convinced that there was no bar for him to establish his right
as a legatee under the will, even without first obtaining letters of
administration – Hence, his subsequent act of filing a testamentary
case before High Court of Uttarakhand is nothing but a ruse to
take advantage of the general proposition of law that probate              D
proceedings are proceedings in rem and should have primacy – No
ground made out to transfer the partition suit to District Court,
Nainital – Second transfer petition seeks transfer of the testamentary
case pending in the High Court of Uttarakhand to the District Court,
Saket, Delhi – Since the Will set up by the petitioner covers properties
                                                                           E
located both in Nainital and Delhi, both these courts have concurrent
jurisdiction – But in view of proviso (b) to s.273, letters of
administration granted by a District Court cannot have validity in
respect of a property located outside the State, if its value exceeds
Rs. 10,000/- –To resolve this, testamentary case is transferred to
the High Court of Delhi and the partition suit is transferred from         F
the District Court, Saket, Delhi to the High Court of Delhi – Indian
Succession Act, 1925 – ss.57-191, 217-369 .
      Indian Succession Act, 1925:
      ss.57, 264(2) – Held: Bar u/s.264(2) has no application to
cases, to which s.57 applies.                                              G

      ss.212, 213 – Applicability of – Discussed.
      ss.57, 212, 213, 264 – Held: By virtue of s.213(2)(i) r/w
s.57(a), (b), the mandatory requirement to seek probate or letters of
administration for establishing a right as executor or legatee under       H
                                 881
882            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     a Will, is applicable only to Wills made by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh
      or Jain within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction
      of certain High Courts and to Wills made outside those territories,
      to the extent they cover immovable property situate within those
      territories.
B           Disposing of the Transfer Petitions, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 This Court did not consider or did not have an
      occasion to consider in any of the decisions referred, the difference
      between cases where a party is entitled to rely upon a Will in a
      judicial proceeding even without getting probate/letters of
C     administration and cases where there is a bar for the production
      of a Will in a judicial proceeding without first getting probate/
      letters of administration. The primacy to be accorded to probate
      proceedings would depend upon the category to which the case
      belongs. [Para 23][893-G-H; 894-A]

D           1.2 The District Judge is conferred with the jurisdiction to
      grant and revoke probates and letters of administration in all
      cases within his District, under Section 264 of the Indian
      Succession Act, 1925. Sub-section (2) of Section 264 imposes a
      bar upon the Courts in any local area beyond the limits of the
      towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, from receiving
E     applications for probate or letters of administration, until the State
      Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorized
      them so to do, wherever the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan,
      Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person. But the bar under
      Sub-section (2) has no application to cases, to which Section 57
F     applies. [Paras 27, 28][894-E, G-H; 895-A]
            1.3 The jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge in
      Chapter IV of Part IX, is also exercisable by the High Court, by
      virtue of the concurrent jurisdiction conferred under Section 300.
      The bar under sub-Section (2) of Section 264 is found also in sub-
G     Section (2) of Section 300. Part VIII of the Act which is perhaps
      the smallest among the several parts of the Act, contains two
      important provisions in Sections 212 and 213. While Section 212
      deals with the right to intestate’s property, Section 213 deals
      with the establishment of the right as executor or legatee under
      a Will. These two Rules can be stated as follows : (i) without first
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                          883
                    & ORS.

obtaining letters of administration from a Court of competent           A
jurisdiction, no right to any property of a person other than a
Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, Indian Christian or
Parsi, who has died intestate, can be established in any court of
justice; (ii) no right as executor or legatee under a Will (other
than a Will made by a Muhammadan or Indian Christian) can be
                                                                        B
established in any Court of justice unless probate of the Will or
letters of administration with the Will annexed, has been granted
by a court of competent jurisdiction. But the second Rule which
is found in Section 213, is applicable only: (i) in the case of Wills
made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, if those Wills are of
the classes specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57; and (ii)    C
in the case of Wills made by any Parsi dying after the
commencement of the Amendment Act 16 of 1962, if such Wills
are made within the local limits of the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay
and in case such Wills have been made outside those limits, in so
                                                                        D
far as they relate to immovable property situate within those limits.
[Paras 31-34][895-G; 896-C; 897-B-E]
      1.4 A cumulative reading of Sections 57, 213 and 264 would
show: (i) that a person claiming to be an executor or legatee
under a Will cannot rely upon the Will, in any proceeding before
a Court of justice, unless he has obtained probate (if an executor      E
has been appointed) or letters of administration with the Will
annexed, if such a Will has been executed by certain classes of
persons; and (ii) that the jurisdiction to grant probate or letters
of administration vests only in courts located within the towns of
Calcutta, Madras or Bombay and the Courts in any local area             F
notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette.
Therefore, what follows is that: (i) unless the testator belongs to
any of the classes of persons specified in the Act; and (ii) unless
the Will is made or some of the properties covered by the Will
are located, within the local limits of a notified area, there is no
necessity for an executor or a legatee under a Will to seek probate     G
or letters of administration. The decision in Balbir Singh Wasu
did not take note of the bar under Section 264(2) when it opined
in general terms in Paragraph 5 of the judgment that “We do not
read Section 213 as prohibiting the executor for applying for
probate as a matter of prudence or convenience to the courts in         H
884            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     other parts of the country not covered by Section 213”.
      [Paras 35, 36][897-F-H; 898-A-B]
            Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh & Others (2005)
            12 SCC 503 – referred to.
             1.5 By virtue of Section 213(2)(i) read with Clauses (a) and
B     (b) of Section 57, the mandatory requirement to seek probate or
      letters of administration for establishing a right as executor or
      legatee under a Will, is applicable only to Wills made by a Hindu,
      Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina within the local limits of the ordinary
      original civil jurisdiction of certain High Courts and to Wills made
C     outside those territories, to the extent they cover immovable
      property situate within those territories. Therefore, there is no
      prohibition for a person whose case falls outside the purview of
      these provisions, from producing, relying upon and claiming a
      right under a Will, in any proceeding instituted by others including
      the other legal heirs for partition or other reliefs. [Para 37]
D     [898-C-D]
              2.1 In the case on hand, the petitioner himself proceeded
      (i) first to have mutation effected in the revenue records and (ii)
      then to file a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 on the file of the Civil
      Judge, Senior Division, Nainital, for a decree of permanent
E     injunction, on the basis of the very same last Will and Testament
      dated 06.04.2011 of his father, without seeking letters of
      administration. He did not think that Section 213(1) was a bar for
      him to establish his right as a legatee under the Will, without
      obtaining letters of administration. After having done so, the
F     petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 chose to file Testamentary
      Case No.01 of 2019 after 8 years of first shooting a claim under
      the Will and that too after the vacation of the stay of further
      proceedings in the partition suit by order dated 09.10.2018.
      Therefore, the petitioner in T.P (C) No. 970 of 2016 cannot
      be allowed to make this Court a fait accompli. [Paras 38, 39]
G     [898-E-G]
             2.2 The partition suit, which is pending on the file of the
      District Court, Saket is 8 years old, as it was instituted on the file
      of the High Court of Delhi in September, 2012 and was transferred
      to the District Court in 2016. The written statement in the said
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                         885
                    & ORS.

suit was filed by Major ‘RN’ way back in November, 2012, when          A
the suit was pending in the High Court of Delhi. In the written
statement, the petitioner has pleaded the execution of the
disputed Will. Therefore, Major ‘RN’ was convinced that there
was no bar for him to establish his right as a legatee under the
will, even without first obtaining letters of administration. Hence,
                                                                       B
his subsequent act of filing a testamentary case before the High
Court of Uttarakhand, is nothing but a ruse to take advantage of
the general proposition of law that probate proceedings are
proceedings in rem and that they should have primacy. This
argument is available only to a person who is disabled by virtue
of Section 213(1), from relying upon a Will in any proceeding,         C
without first obtaining probate/letters of administration.
Therefore, the legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 that the partition suit should follow the
testamentary case, is rejected. Even on facts, there is no ground
to order the transfer of the partition suit to the District Court,
                                                                       D
Nainital and hence, T.P (C) No. 970 of 2016 is dismissed.
[Paras 40, 47][898-H; 899-A-D; 901-C]
      2.3 In so far as the second transfer petition is concerned,
the relief sought therein is to transfer the testamentary case
pending in the High Court of Uttarakhand to the District Court,
Saket, Delhi. Since the Will set up by the petitioner covers           E
properties located both in Nainital and Delhi, both these courts
have concurrent jurisdiction. But in view of Proviso (b) to Section
273, letters of administration granted by a District Court cannot
have validity in respect of a property located outside the State, if
its value exceeds Rs. 10,000/-. However, this problem can be           F
resolved by ordering the transfer of the testamentary case to the
High Court of Delhi and ordering the transfer of the partition
suit from the District Court, Saket back to the High Court of
Delhi. The partition suit be clubbed along with the testamentary
proceeding and taken up together for disposal. [Paras 48, 49]
[901-D-G]                                                              G

      Ishwardeo Narain Singh vs. Smt. Kamta Devi and
      Others AIR 1954 SC 280 – held inapplicable.
      Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh and Others
      (1993) 2 SCC 507 : [1993] 2 SCR 454; T. Venkata                  H
886             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A            Narayana and Others vs. Venkata Subbamma (Smt.)
             (dead) & Others (1996) 4 SCC 457 : [1996] 3
             SCR 1042; Smt. Rukmani Devi and Others vs. Narendra
             Lal Gupta (1985) 1 SCC 144; Nirmala Devi vs. Arun
             Kumar Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 505; Smt. Rukmani Devi
             and Others vs. Narendra Lal Gupta (1985) 1 SCC 144
B
             – referred to.
                                Case Law Reference
      AIR 1954 SC 280                     held inapplicable          Para 15
      [1993] 2 SCR 454                    referred to                Para 15
C
      [1996] 3 SCR 1042                   referred to                Para 15
      (2005) 12 SCC 503                   referred to                Para 15
      (1985) 1 SCC 144                    referred to                Para 15
      (2005) 12 SCC 505                   referred to                Para 22
D
      (1985) 1 SCC 144                    referred to                Para 42
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil)
      No. 970 of 2016.
             Petition for transfer of the suit no. CS-126 of 2016 of Additional
E     District Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi.
             With
             Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2779 of 2019.
            Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan,
F     Ms. Rakshanda Deka, Trideep Pais, Ms. Shivam Sharma, Ms. Anjana
      Chandrashekar, Sanjeev Agarwal, Manish Kumar, Piyush Kaushik, Ms.
      Divya Roy, H.S. Sharma, Yetendra Sharma, Prashant Kumar, M/S. Ap
      & J Chambers, Gautam Narayan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
             The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
G                                   JUDGMENT
             1. While Transfer Petition (C) No.970 of 2016 is for the transfer
      of a suit for partition, pending on the file of the Additional District Judge,
      Saket Court, New Delhi to a Court of competent jurisdiction in the District
      of Nainital, Uttarakhand, Transfer Petition (C) No.2779 of 2019 is for
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                    887
                    & ORS.

the transfer of a testamentary case pending on the file of the High Court         A
of Uttarakhand, Nainital to the District Court at Saket, New Delhi.
       2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
       3. One Shri Badri Nath Agarwal, who was ordinarily a resident of
Village Bithoriya No.1, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand,
died on 07.05.2011, at the ripe old age of 91 years, leaving behind him           B
surviving, five sons and a daughter. They were (1) Major Ravinder Nath
Agarwal, (2) Surender Nath, (3) Narender Nath, (4) Virender Nath
Agarwal, (5) Lily Nath (daughter) and (6) Yogender Nath Agarwal. Out
of these six children, Shri Narender Nath is now no more. He died on
06.09.2019 leaving behind his wife Smt. Ira Joshi and two sons by name            C
Nikhil Nath and Aditya Nath.
       4. Claiming that his father Late Badri Nath executed his last Will
and Testament on 06.04.2011, cancelling and revoking his previous Will
dated 26.06.2005 and that under the last Will dated 06.04.2011, a vast
extent of agricultural land in Village Bithoriya No.1, Tehsil Haldwani,           D
District Nainital, was bequeathed to him, the eldest son Major Ravinder
Nath Agarwal got mutation effected in his favour in the revenue records,
but the same became the subject matter of a writ petition filed by Lily
Nath on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand. Apart from filing a
writ petition challenging the mutation effected in favour of her eldest
brother, Lily Nath also filed a civil suit in Suit No.57 of 2011 on the file of   E
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital seeking a decree of permanent
injunction. As a counter blast, Major Ravinder Nath, who claims to be
the legatee under the Will and who got mutation effected in his favour in
respect of one property, also filed civil suit in Suit No.72 of 2011 on the
file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division seeking a decree of permanent            F
injunction.
       5. Thereafter the last son Shri Yogender Nath, filed a suit in C.S
No.2745 of 2012 on the file of High Court of Delhi, for a partition of all
the properties left behind by Shri Badri Nath. The suit was filed in
September-2012. But in the year 2016, presumably after the filing of the          G
written statements, the said suit was transferred to the file of the Additional
District Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi and re-numbered as C.S No.126
of 2016.
       6. Immediately thereafter, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal filed
the first of these transfer petitions namely T.P (C) No. 970 of 2016,
                                                                                  H
888            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     seeking the transfer of the partition suit pending on the file of the
      Additional District Judge, Saket, New Delhi to the Court of District Judge
      at Nainital, Uttarakhand. On 08.07.2016, this Court ordered notice in the
      transfer petition and also granted stay of further proceedings in the
      partition suit.
B            7. But a few days before this Court ordered notice and granted
      stay, the plaintiff in the partition suit namely Sh. Yogender Nath (last
      son) abandoned the suit and hence the only daughter Lily Nath got herself
      transposed as the plaintiff, by moving an application under Order XXIII
      Rule 1-A. The original plaintiff Yogender Nath was transposed as
      defendant No.5.
C
             8. On 09.10.2018, this Court passed an order in T.P (C) No. 970
      of 2016, vacating the stay of further proceedings in the partition suit
      earlier granted on 08.07.2016. Thereafter the eldest son Major Ravinder
      Nath filed a petition in Testamentary Case No.01 of 2019 on the file of
      the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, seeking the grant of letters of
D
      administration with the Will dated 06.04.2011 annexed thereto, under
      Section 276 read with Sections 250 and 273(b) of the Indian Succession
      Act, 1925. Upon receipt of summons in the said testamentary case, the
      daughter Lily Nath came up with the second transfer petition namely
      T.P (C) No.2779 of 2019, praying for the transfer of the testamentary
E     case from Uttarakhand High Court to the District Court, Saket, New
      Delhi where her partition suit is now pending, so that both could be tried
      together.
             9. Thus, I have on hand two transfer petitions, one of the year
      2016, filed by the eldest son seeking a transfer of the partition suit from
F     the District Court, Saket, New Delhi to the District Court, Nainital,
      Uttarakhand and another of the year 2019 filed by the plaintiff in the
      partition suit seeking the transfer of the testamentary case pending on
      the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand to the District Court at Saket,
      to be tried together with her partition suit. Since the eldest son Major
      Ravinder Nath, is the petitioner in the first transfer petition, he shall
G
      hereinafter be referred to as “the petitioner” and Ms. Lily Nath shall be
      referred to as “the contesting respondent”.
            10. Before I proceed further, it should be brought on record that
      the earliest of the civil suits namely C.S No.57 of 2011 filed by the
      daughter Lily Nath for a decree of permanent injunction, on the file of
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                      889
                    & ORS.

the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital was dismissed for non-                   A
prosecution on 27.11.2015. However, the second suit in C.S No.72 of
2011 filed by Major Ravinder Nath, seeking a decree of permanent
injunction is still pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nainital. I am not concerned with this civil suit, as it is not the subject
matter of any transfer petition.
                                                                                    B
       11. The short question that arises for consideration in these transfer
petitions, is as to whether the partition suit pending on the file of the
District Court at Saket, New Delhi from the year 2016 (instituted in
2012), should be transferred to the District Court, Nainital, Uttarakhand
or whether the testamentary case pending on the file of the High Court
                                                                                    C
of Uttarakhand from 2019, should be transferred to the District Court,
Saket, so that it could be tried along with the partition suit already pending
there.
      12. Before I take up for consideration, the rival contentions, three
important aspects have to be borne in mind. They are:-
                                                                                    D
        (i) The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital does not have
ordinary original civil jurisdiction, though it has jurisdiction to entertain a
testamentary case for the grant of probate or letters of administration.
Therefore, the partition suit pending in the District Court, Saket cannot
be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand, but can be transferred
                                                                                    E
only to a District Court in Nainital. The District court, Nainital will not
have jurisdiction to grant probate/letters of administration in respect of a
property located outside its territorial limits, if its value exceeds Rs.10,000/
-. Per contra, both the High Court of Delhi as well as the District Court,
Saket, have jurisdiction to entertain an application for the grant of probate/
letters of administration subject to certain conditions/restrictions;               F
       (ii) The last Will and Testament dated 06.04.2011 set up by the
eldest son Major Ravinder Nath, covers two properties, one of which is
a MIG flat promoted by the Delhi Development Authority at Saket, New
Delhi. The other property is a bhumidhari land lying in Khata No.741
measuring an extent of 6.8550 hectares in Village Bithoriya No.1, Tehsil            G
Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand, along with a residential house,
service quarters and sheds. Therefore by virtue of Section 264(1) of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, the District Judge, Saket has jurisdiction to
entertain a petition for the grant letters of administration, at least in respect
of the property at Delhi; and
                                                                                    H
890                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A             (iii) The partition suit was filed in the year 2012 on the file of the
      High Court of Delhi and was transferred to the District Court, Saket in
      the year 2016. At the time when the eldest son Major Ravinder Nath
      came up with T.P (C) No.970 of 2016, no proceeding for the grant of
      letters of administration was pending in the High Court of Uttarakhand.
      Actually the petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 chose to file a
B
      testamentary case in the High Court of Uttarakhand only in January
      2019, after the stay of partition suit granted in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016
      was vacated on 09.10.2018. Therefore it must be remembered that the
      petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 created a situation that could be
      taken advantage of by him.
C
             13. Keeping the above background in mind, let me now look at
      the grounds on which the transfer of the partition suit from Delhi to
      Nainital is sought. In the transfer petition T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 the
      petitioner has contended :
             (i)      that he was 68 years of age (at that time), suffering from
D
                      many diseases and undergoing cardiac care treatment with
                      implanted pace maker;
             (ii)     that he had suffered a paralytic stroke on the right side of
                      the body and a blood clot in the brain;
E            (iii)    that the respondents were already contesting the mutation
                      case in Haldwani;
             (iv)     that three of the respondents are foreign nationals residing
                      out of India;

F            (v)      that the subject matter of the suit includes an immovable
                      property situate within the jurisdiction of the competent Court
                      in Nainital; and
             (vi)     that there is a bar of jurisdiction of other Courts under Uttar
                      Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
G            14. In addition to the grounds indicated in the transfer petition, it is
      also contended by Sh. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel
      and Sh. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that in a petition
      for transfer, the location and convenience of the parties, subject to the
      territorial jurisdiction of the Courts, should also be taken into account;
H     that in the testamentary case, an application under Section 10 CPC was
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                   891
                    & ORS.

filed, but before the High Court of Uttarakhand could pass orders on the         A
application under Section 10, the second transfer petition came to be
filed; that testamentary proceedings, being proceedings in rem, will have
primacy over other proceedings and, hence, the partition suit is liable to
be transferred; and that by virtue of Proviso (b) of Section 273 of the
Indian Succession Act, any probate/letters of administration granted by
                                                                                 B
the District Court at Saket will not have effect in other States, unless the
value of the property and estate affected beyond the limits of the State
does not exceed Rs.10,000/-.
       15. While Sh. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel
cited the decisions of this Court in Ishwardeo Narain Singh vs. Smt.
                                                                                 C
Kamta Devi and Others.1 ; Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit
Singh and Others2; T. Venkata Narayana and Others vs. Venkata
Subbamma (Smt.) (dead) & Others3; Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir
Singh & Others4,Sh. Manish Kumar learned Counsel relied upon Smt.
Rukmani Devi and Others vs. Narendra Lal Gupta5.
                                                                                 D
       16. In response, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan and Sh. H.S. Sharma,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the
testamentary proceedings were initiated deliberately in Uttarakhand after
seven years of the institution of the partition suit in Delhi and that the
petitioner in the first transfer petition is guilty of abuse of the process of
Court.                                                                           E
        17. As can be seen from the rival contentions, most of them are
on factual foundation. However, one contention advanced on behalf of
the petitioner, is purely legal and deserves a deeper scrutiny. Therefore,
I shall take up that contention first.
                                                                                 F
       18. According to the petitioner, who is eldest of the siblings and
who has set up a Will, the proceedings in a testamentary case are
proceedings in rem and that, therefore, they will have primacy and that,
irrespective of the fact that the testamentary proceedings were initiated
much after the institution of the partition suit, the partition suit and not
the testamentary case, is liable to be transferred. In support of these          G

1
  AIR 1954 SC 280
2
  (1993) 2 SCC 507
3
  (1996) 4 SCC 457
4
  (2005) 12 SCC 503
5
  (1985) 1 SCC 144                                                               H
892             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied
      upon certain decisions. The first of these decisions is that of this Court in
      Ishwardeo Narain Singh (supra).This Judgment is relied upon only for
      the limited purpose of showing that a Court of probate is concerned only
      with the question whether the document put forward as the last Will and
      Testament was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and
B
      whether at the time of execution, the testator was in a sound and disposing
      state of mind. We are not concerned in this case with the question as to
      the nature of the proceedings for probate or letters of administration.
      Therefore, the said decision is of no assistance for deciding the question
      on hand.
C
             19. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra), the primary question
      that arose was as to whether an arbitrator appointed by this Court, by
      consent of parties, would have jurisdiction to deal even with the
      proceedings for probate. Answering the question in the negative, this
      Court held that the probate Court alone has been conferred with the
D     exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration and
      that even by consent, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon an
      arbitrator to adjudicate upon the proof or validity of the Will. Obviously
      this decision is only on the question of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal
      relating to testamentary proceedings and not about the right of a party to
      seek transfer of a proceeding, from one Court to another, when both
E
      Courts are claimed to have jurisdiction.
              20. In T. Venkata Narayana (supra), the question before this
      Court was whether secondary evidence could be led, in a suit for
      injunction, to prove an alleged Will. This Court held that a suit for injunction
      cannot be converted into a suit for probation of a Will and that if the Will
F
      is to be proved according to law, it has to be by way of a probate proceeding
      in the Court having competency and jurisdiction according to the
      procedure prescribed in the Indian Succession Act. But this decision
      does not lay down (and could not have laid down) any proposition that all
      Wills executed by all classes of persons in all areas throughout the country
G     require probate/letters of administration, as we shall see later.
             21. Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) is the only case where this Court
      was concerned with the question whether the proceedings for probate
      initiated later in point of time than a suit for declaration and injunction
      could proceed further or not. In this case, the party who had first filed a
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                893
                    & ORS.

suit for declaration and injunction before the Court of a Civil Judge,        A
sought stay of the probate proceedings initiated by the opposite party in
the High Court, later in point of time, on the basis of Section 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court rejected the prayer for stay on
the ground that the pendency of the suit for declaration will not bar the
High Court from entertaining probate proceedings. Without answering
                                                                              B
the question revolving around section 10, CPC directly, this Court held in
Balbir Singh Wasu: (i) that a decision on the appellant’s civil suit would
not conclude the probate proceedings; (ii) that the question whether
probate should be granted or not would still be left to be determined by
the High Court, though the decision of the civil Court may be relevant
even in those proceedings; and (iii) that though the requirement of Section   C
213 of the Indian Succession Act, for an executor to obtain probate, may
not apply to all the areas outside the presidency towns (or the notified
areas), there is no prohibition for an executor to apply for probate as a
matter of prudence or convenience, even in cases where they are not
covered by Section 213.
                                                                              D
       22. There are two interesting aspects to the decision in Balbir
Singh (supra). They are: (i) Without deciding the question whether an
application under Section 10 CPC would lie or not, this Court transferred
the probate proceedings from the High Court to a District Court which
was competent to entertain probate proceedings and transferred the suit
                                                                              E
for declaration also to the same Court so that both of them could be
clubbed and heard together. Unfortunately, this Court omitted to take
note of the fact that in cases where no probate is mandatorily required
by law, the Will could be relied upon in any civil action, even without
getting it probated. (ii)Balbir Singh followed another decision of this
court in Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta6. It was a case where              F
probate proceedings were initiated in 1997 with respect to a Will of the
year 1984. A civil suit was already pending from 1987, but this Court
merely ordered the transfer of the civil suit pending on the file of the
sub-Judge to the Court of the District Judge where probate proceedings
were pending, so that both could be clubbed together and disposed of.
                                                                              G
      23. This Court did not consider or did not have an occasion to
consider in any of the above decisions, the difference between cases
where a party is entitled to rely upon a Will in a judicial proceeding even
without getting probate/letters of administration and cases where there
6
    (2005) 12 SCC 505                                                         H
894             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     is a bar for the production of a Will in a judicial proceeding without first
      getting probate/letters of administration. The primacy to be accorded to
      probate proceedings would depend upon the category to which the case
      belongs.
            24. Having said that, let us now take a closer look at some of the
B     provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
             25. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is divided into 11 parts, with
      some of the parts sub-divided into several chapters. Part VI of the Act
      comprising of 23 Chapters, contains exhaustive provisions relating to
      “Testamentary Succession”. Sections 57 to 191 of the Act are included
C     in this Part.
            26. Part IX of the Act contains Sections 217 to 369, divided into
      13 chapters. Chapter IV of Part IX contains provisions governing “the
      practice in granting and revoking probates and letters of
      administration.” Sections 264 to 302 are found in this Chapter. The
D     procedure for making an application for probate or for letters of
      administration with the Will annexed, is provided in Section 276.
             27. The District Judge is conferred with the jurisdiction to grant
      and revoke probates and letters of administration in all cases within his
      District, under Section 264 of the Act. Section 264 reads as follows:-
E           “264. Jurisdiction of District Judge in granting and revoking
            probates, etc.— (1) The District Judge shall have jurisdiction
            in granting and revoking probates and letters of
            administration in all cases within his district.
            (2) Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no Court in
F           any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta,
            Madras and Bombay, shall, where the deceased is a Hindu,
            Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted
            person, receive applications for probate or letters of
            administration until the State Government has, by a
            notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do.”
G
             28. It may be seen from Sub-section (2) of Section 264, that it
      imposes a bar upon the Courts in any local area beyond the limits of the
      towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, from receiving applications for
      probate or letters of administration, until the State Government, by a
      notification in the Official Gazette, authorized them so to do, wherever
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                              895
                    & ORS.

the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an          A
exempted person. But the bar under Sub-section (2) has no application
to cases, to which Section 57 applies.
      29. Section 57 of the Act reads as follows:
      “57. Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of
                                                                            B
      Wills made by Hindus, etc.—The provisions of this Part which
      are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions
      and modifications specified therein, apply—
      (a) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist,
      Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of September, 1870,           C
      within the territories which at the said date were subject to
      the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits
      of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts
      of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and
      (b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories     D
      and limits so far as relates to immoveable property situate
      within those territories or limits; [and
      (c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist,
      Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to
      which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and             E
      (b):]
      Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such Will or
      codicil.”
      30. Schedule III of the Act contains a list of provisions which are
applicable, subject to certain restrictions and modifications, to all the   F
Wills described in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 57.
       31. The jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge in Chapter
IV of Part IX, is also exercisable by the High Court, by virtue of the
concurrent jurisdiction conferred under Section 300. Section 300 reads
as follows:                                                                 G

      “300. Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court.—
      (1) The High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with
      the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby
      conferred upon the District Judge.                                    H
896               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           (2) Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no High Court,
            in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction hereby conferred
            over any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta,
            Madras and Bombay shall, where the deceased is a Hindu,
            Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted
            person, receive applications for probate or letters of
B
            administration until the State Government has, by a
            notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do.”
            The bar under sub-Section (2) of Section 264 is found also in sub-
      Section (2) of Section 300.
C           32. Part VIII of the Act which is perhaps the smallest among the
      several parts of the Act, contains two important provisions in Sections
      212 and 213. They read as follows:
            “212. Right to intestate’s property.—(1) No right to any part
            of the property of a person who has died intestate can be
D           established in any Court of Justice, unless letters of
            administration have first been granted by a Court of competent
            jurisdiction.
            (2) This section shall not apply in the case of the intestacy of
            a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, [Indian
E           Christian or Parsi].
            213. Right as executor or legatee when established.—(1) No
            right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court
            of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in [India]
            has granted probate of the Will under which the right is
F           claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the Will
            or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed.
            (2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by
            Muhammadans [or Indian Christians], or and shall only
            apply—
G
            (i)     in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh
                    or Jaina where such Wills are of the classes specified
                    in clauses (a) and (b) of section 57; and
            (ii)    in the case of Wills made by any Parsi dying, after the
H                   commencement of the Indian Succession (Amendment)
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                   897
                    & ORS.

              Act, 1962 (16 of 1962), where such Wills are made within           A
              the local limits of the [ordinary original civil jurisdiction]
              of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay,
              and where such Wills are made outside those limits, in
              so far as they relate to immoveable property situated
              within those limits.]”
                                                                                 B
       33. While Section 212 deals with the right to intestate’s property,
Section 213 deals with the establishment of the right as executor or
legatee under a Will. In simple terms these two Rules can be stated as
follows: (i) without first obtaining letters of administration from a Court
of competent jurisdiction, no right to any property of a person other than
                                                                                 C
a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, Indian Christian or Parsi,
who has died intestate, can be established in any court of justice; (ii) no
right as executor or legatee under a Will (other than a Will made by a
Muhammadan or Indian Christian) can be established in any Court of
justice unless probate of the Will or letters of administration with the Will
annexed, has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction.                  D
        34. But the second Rule stated above which is found in Section
213, is applicable only: (i) in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh or Jaina, if those Wills are of the classes specified in Clauses (a)
and (b) of Section 57; and (ii) in the case of Wills made by any Parsi
dying after the commencement of the Amendment Act 16 of 1962, if                 E
such Wills are made within the local limits of the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and in
case such Wills have been made outside those limits, in so far as they
relate to immovable property situate within those limits.
       35. A cumulative reading of Sections 57, 213 and 264 would show:          F
(i) that a person claiming to be an executor or legatee under a Will
cannot rely upon the Will, in any proceeding before a Court of justice,
unless he has obtained probate (if an executor has been appointed) or
letters of administration with the Will annexed, if such a Will has been
executed by certain classes of persons; and (ii) that the jurisdiction to
                                                                                 G
grant probate or letters of administration vests only in courts located
within the towns of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay and the Courts in any
local area notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette.
      36. Therefore, what follows is that: (i) unless the testator belongs
to any of the classes of persons specified in the Act; and (ii) unless the
                                                                                 H
898             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     Will is made or some of the properties covered by the Will are located,
      within the local limits of a notified area, there is no necessity for an
      executor or a legatee under a Will to seek probate or letters of
      administration. In fact, the decision in Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) did
      not take note of the bar under Section 264(2) when it opined in general
      terms in Paragraph 5 of the judgment that “We do not read Section
B
      213 as prohibiting the executor for applying for probate as a matter
      of prudence or convenience to the courts in other parts of the country
      not covered by Section 213”.
             37. By virtue of Section 213(2)(i) read with Clauses (a) and (b) of
      Section 57, the mandatory requirement to seek probate or letters of
C
      administration for establishing a right as executor or legatee under a
      Will, is applicable only to Wills made by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina
      within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of
      certain High Courts and to Wills made outside those territories, to the
      extent they cover immovable property situate within those territories.
D     Therefore, there is no prohibition for a person whose case falls outside
      the purview of these provisions, from producing, relying upon and claiming
      a right under a Will, in any proceeding instituted by others including the
      other legal heirs for partition or other reliefs.
              38. In the case on hand, the petitioner Ravinder Nath himself
E     proceeded (i) first to have mutation effected in the revenue records and
      (ii) then to file a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 on the file of the Civil Judge,
      Senior Division, Nainital, for a decree of permanent injunction, on the
      basis of the very same last Will and Testament dated 06.04.2011 of his
      father, without seeking letters of administration. He did not think that
      Section 213(1) was a bar for him to establish his right as a legatee under
F
      the Will, without obtaining letters of administration.
             39. After having done so, the petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016
      chose to file Testamentary Case No.01 of 2019 after 8 years of first
      shooting a claim under the Will and that too after the vacation of the stay
      of further proceedings in the partition suit by order dated 09.10.2018.
G
      Therefore, I cannot allow the petitioner in T.P (C) No. 970 of 2016 to
      make this Court a fait accompli.
            40. The partition suit, which is pending on the file of the District
      Court, Saket is actually 8 years old, as it was instituted on the file of the
      High Court of Delhi in September, 2012 and was transferred to the District
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                 899
                    & ORS.

Court in 2016. The written statement in the said suit was filed by Major       A
Ravinder Nath way back in November, 2012, when the suit was pending
in the High Court of Delhi as C.S No.2745 of 2012. In Paragraph 8g of
the written statement, the petitioner has pleaded the execution of the
disputed Will. The true copy of the Will is stated to have been annexed
as D-1/5, to the written statement. Therefore, obviously Major Ravinder
                                                                               B
Nath was convinced that there was no bar for him to establish his right
as a legatee under the will, even without first obtaining letters of
administration. Hence, his subsequent act of filing a testamentary case
before the High Court of Uttarakhand, is nothing but a ruse to take
advantage of the general proposition of law that probate proceedings
are proceedings in rem and that they should have primacy. This argument        C
is available only to a person who is disabled by virtue of Section 213(1),
from relying upon a Will in any proceeding, without first obtaining probate/
letters of administration. Therefore, the legal contention raised on behalf
of the petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 that the partition suit should
follow the testamentary case, is liable to be rejected in the facts and
                                                                               D
circumstances of this case.
       41. In fact, the petitioner in T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 is not even
helping himself by resorting to this. After having claimed way back in
November, 2012 that there was a Will, he chose to file the testamentary
proceedings only in January 2019, overlooking Article 137 of the Limitation
                                                                               E
Act, 1963 and certain decisions of this Court. I am not going into those
details, as it may prejudice his case.
       42. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Rukmani
Devi and Others vs. Narendra Lal Gupta7, it was contended by Mr.
Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that by virtue of Proviso
                                                                               F
(b) of Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, any letters of
administration granted by the District Court, Saket cannot have effect in
other States unless the value of the property affected by the grant and
located beyond the limits of the State, does not exceed Rs.10,000/-.
       43. But this argument is one of convenience. Nothing prevented
                                                                               G
the petitioner from filing the testamentary proceedings in the High Court
of Delhi by taking advantage of Proviso (a) of Section 273 and seeking
the withdrawal of the suit for partition from the District Court, Saket to
the High Court to be tried together. Section 273 reads as follows:
7
    (1985) 1 SCC 144
                                                                               H
900             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A            “273. Conclusiveness of probate or letters of administration.—
             Probate or letters of administration shall have effect over all
             the property and estate, movable or immovable, of the
             deceased, throughout the State in which the same is or are
             granted, and shall be conclusive as to the representative title
             against all debtors of the deceased, and all persons holding
B
             property which belongs to him, and shall afford full indemnity
             to all debtors, paying their debts and all persons delivering
             up such property to the person to whom such probate or letters
             of administration have been granted:
             Provided that probates and letters of administration granted—
C
             (a) by a High Court, or
             (b) by a District Judge, where the deceased at the time of his
             death had a fixed place of abode situate within the jurisdiction
             of such Judge, and such Judge certifies that the value of the
D            property and estate affected beyond the limits of the State
             does not exceed ten thousand rupees,
             shall, unless otherwise directed by the grant, have like effect
             throughout the other States

E            Therefore, the petitioner, taking advantage of the pendency of the
      partition suit from 2012 to 2016, could have filed the testamentary
      proceeding in the High Court of Delhi itself and relied upon Proviso (a)
      of section 273, instead of now relying upon Proviso (b) of Section 273.
             44. Having dealt with the legal contention, let me now move on to
F     the factual basis on which transfer of the partition suit is sought. It is
      claimed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
      is a senior citizen suffering from a host of health issues. The attesters
      are also not residents of Delhi. Therefore, he argued that at least the
      convenience of the parties may have to be taken into account.

G            45. But in these days of virtual hearings, the location of the parties
      is hardly a matter of concern. In fact, an application in I.A.No.130939
      of 2020 has been moved by the petitioner, seeking a direction to examine
      one of the attesters either through video conferencing or through court
      appointed commissioner, as he is 74 years of age, having a lot of medical
      issues and has also tested positive for COVID-19.
H
RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL v. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL                                  901
                    & ORS.

      46. The very fact that even according to the petitioner, the attester     A
can be examined through video conference or court appointed
commissioner would show that the place where the proceedings are
pending, is immaterial.
       47. The fact that 3 out of the surviving 5 children are citizens of
other countries residing out of India and that therefore they cannot have       B
any objection to the proceedings being tried in Uttarakhand, is not
acceptable. It would have been open to the petitioner to raise such a
contention, had he chosen to make the first strike by filing the testamentary
proceedings in 2011 or 2012. He did not do so. Therefore, even on facts,
I find no ground to order the transfer of the partition suit to the District
                                                                                C
Court, Nainital and hence, T.P (C) No. 970 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed.
       48. In so far as the second transfer petition is concerned, the
relief sought therein is to transfer the testamentary case pending in the
High Court of Uttarakhand to the District Court, Saket, Delhi. Since the
Will set up by the petitioner covers properties located both in Nainital
                                                                                D
and Delhi, both these courts have concurrent jurisdiction. But in view of
Proviso (b) to Section 273, letters of administration granted by a District
Court cannot have validity in respect of a property located outside the
State, if its value exceeds Rs. 10,000/-. However, this problem can be
resolved by ordering the transfer of the testamentary case to the High
Court of Delhi and ordering the transfer of the partition suit from the         E
District Court, Saket back to the High Court of Delhi.
      49. Therefore, the Transfer Petitions are disposed of to the
following effect:-
      (i)     T.P (C) No.970 of 2016 is dismissed;                              F
      (ii)    T.P (C) No.2779 of 2019 is allowed and the Testamentary
              Case No.01 of 2019 pending on the file of the High Court
              of Uttarakhand is ordered to be transferred to the file of
              the High Court of Delhi;
      (iii)   The partition suit in C.S No. 126 of 2016 pending on the file     G
              of the Additional District Court, Saket at Delhi shall stand
              transferred to the High Court of Delhi and clubbed along
              with the testamentary proceeding and taken up together
              for disposal. Considering that the partition suit is about 8
              years old, the High Court of Delhi may consider giving            H
902            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A                    priority of listing. The parties are at liberty to move
                     applications for examination of the witnesses including the
                     attesters of the Will, either through Video Conference or
                     through Court appointed Commissioners and applications
                     for such reliefs may be considered by the High Court
                     favourably.
B
            (iv)     The parties shall bear their respective costs.

      Divya Pandey                                      Transfer petitions disposed of.


C




D




E




F




G




H