Probate basing on Will can be granted even pending suit = there can also be no doubt about the proposition that post Hindu Succession Act, 1956 even if the properties are jointly held, the testator can Will his share in the joint family/ancestral property. Thus, it cannot be said that the probate cannot be granted pending consideration of the suit but the probate would operate qua the property or a share of the property depending on the result of the suit for partition, which is still pending.

1
��            IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       CIVIL APPEAL No. 8192 OF 2013 
AJAY KUMR SHARMA                  ..    APPELLANT(S)
                     VERSUS
BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.      ..   RESPONDENT(S)
                                                        WITH
               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8231 OF 2013
  O R D E R
1. Late   Feteh   Bahadur   Singh   had   3   sons   and   3
daughters.     The   dispute   pertaining   to   the   Estate   of
Feteh Bahadur Singh, including the plea as to whether
there   are   self   acquired   properties   of   Feteh   Bahadur
Singh   or   ancestral   which   formed   subject   matter   of   a
partition   suit   bearing   No.   123/1993,   pending   before
the   learned   Sub-Judge,   Jehanabad,   Bihar,   titled   as,
�Dr.   Birendra   Kumar   Sharma   &   Anr.   vs.   Sri   Bishnu
Kumar Sharma & Ors.
2. One   of   the   sons,   Ajay   Kumar   Sharma   filed   a
probate   case   seeking   probate   of   a   registered   Will
dated   13.05.1981   of   late   Fateh   Bahadur   Singh.     The
probate was granted   vide judgment dated 29.06.2005.
Dr.   Birender   Kumar   Sharma,   another   son   and   wife   of

2
the deceased Feteh Bahadur Singh preferred an appeal
which has been allowed in terms of impugned judgment
dated 26.11.2010.  The High Court gave the concurrent
finding   on   the   genuineness   of   the   Will.       It   was,
however,   noticed   that   the   testator   did   not   mention
the   properties   specifically   which   were   the   subject
matter of the Will as the details were not set out in
the Will.    It is the finding of the High Court that
Ajay Kumar Sharma included in the list of properties
even   joint   family   properties     forming   the   subject
matter   of   the   partition   suit.     It   is,   thus,   opined
that   unless   title   to   those   suit   properties   are
decided, the probate cannot be granted.
3. Ajay   Kumar   Sharma   preferred   Civil   Appeal   No.
8192/2013 while Birendra Kumar Sharma preferred Civil
Appeal No. 8231/2013.  Latter appeal is on the aspect
of   the   Will   being   found   genuine   by   both   the   courts
below.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Insofar   as   Civil   Appeal   No.   8231/2013   is
concerned, on perusal of the record, the testimony of
the   witnesses   and   the   findings   of   the   two   courts
below,   we   find     no   reason   to   interfere   with   the
finding qua the genuineness   of the Will.  The Civil

3
Appeal  No. 8231/2013 stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Insofar as the appeal by Ajay Kumar Sharma is
concerned,   we   are   of   the   view   that   there   can   be   no
doubt   about   the   proposition   that   the   benefits   in
pursuance   of   the   grant   of   the   Will   can   only   be
available   on   determination   of   the   question   as   to
which   of   the   properties   are   joint/ancestral
properties   and   which   of   the   properties   were
individually owned by late Fateh Bahadur Singh.  That
is   the   subject   matter   of   Suit   No.     123/1993.
However,   there   can   also   be   no   doubt   about   the
proposition that post Hindu Succession Act, 1956 even
if the properties are jointly held, the testator can
Will   his   share   in   the   joint   family/ancestral
property.     Thus,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   probate
cannot   be   granted   pending   consideration   of   the   suit
but   the   probate   would   operate   qua   the   property   or   a
share of the property depending on the result of the
suit for partition, which is still pending.
7. We   are   of   the   view   that   since   the   suit   has
already been pending for a long time, the Trial Court
must proceed expeditiously with the trial of the Suit
being   Suit   No.   123/1993.     The   parties   in   the   suit

4
will   cooperate   to   ensure   speedy   trial.     The   Trial
Court will make every endeavour to conclude the trial
and pronounce judgment within one year of the receipt
of copy of this order.   
     
8. To the aforesaid extent, we allow Civil Appeal
No. 8192/2013 and set aside the impugned order of the
High court.
9. The parties to bear their own costs. 
                                    ..................J .
                  [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]
           
           
                                   ...................J.
                             [ K.M. JOSEPH ]
                                           
NEW  DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 19,2019.

5
ITEM NO.105, 105.1       COURT NO.11               SECTION XVI
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal  No(s).  8192/2013
AJAY KUMAR SHARMA                                  Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.                      Respondent(s)
( With appln. For permission to bring on record additional
documents and exemption from filing O.T.)
WITH
C.A. No. 8231/2013 (XVI)
Date : 19-09-2019 These appeals were called on
for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Appellant(s)/ Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.
Respondent(s) Mr.T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
Mr. Smarhar Singh, dv.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Aditya  N. Das, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
                    Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
                   
 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                      O R D E R
Civil   Appeal   No.   8231/2013   is   dismissed   and
Civil appeal No. 8192/2013 is allowed in terms of the
signed order. The parties to bear their own costs.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
 
[ CHARANJEET KAUR ]             [ ANITA RANI AHUJA ]
      A.R.-CUM-P.S.                    COURT MASTER
     [ Signed order is placed on the file ]