C/FA/663/2025(GJHC240089432025) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 663 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 663 of 2025 ========================================================== SARFARAJUDDIN NIZAMUDDIN KURESHI & ORS. Versus DILIP PARMANAND SALOT- OWNER OF ALKA AND STEEL CENTRE & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR JF MEHTA(461) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR KH BAXI(150) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5,6,7 MR SARJAN M PATEL(11593) for the Defendant(s) No. 11 MS AARTI R SAVALIYA(13540) for the Defendant(s) No. 11 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 10,3,9 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 8 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 07/09/2026 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09/04/2024 passed in CMA No.76 of 2023 by the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Court No.15, Ahmedabad ordering to convert the said application in the suit, the appellants – original applicants are before this Court by preferring the present First Appeal. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and as examining the impugned order, it appears that the appellants – org. applicants have filed the aforesaid CMA seeking probate of a registered Will executed by the deceased – Dharmishthaben Jayantilal Patel and pursuant thereto a public advertisement was published inviting objections, if any, against the grant of probate, the respondents herein – third party moved an application below Exh.48, 51 C/FA/663/2025(GJHC240089432025) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026 and 54 whereby objections have been raised against the grant of any probate / letter of admission on the ground that the property in question were taken on lease by respondents for 99 years and the tenure has yet not been completed and therefore, the ownership by way of seeking a probate on the ground of execution of a Will cannot be allowed since the deceased had no right to execute such Will with regard to the property in question which would tantamount to the rights of the objectors / respondents and therefore, while accepting the objections, the probate proceedings have been converted into the suit proceedings and ordered to be tried and be decided as if the suit. 3. 3. As submitted by learned Counsel for the respective parties, it also transpires that the respondents – objectors was the caveator and or objector; but raised such contention solely on account of he having been vested with the rights over the property on the ground of lease alleged to have been executed by the deceased for the period of 99 years and the said period has yet not been over and thereby the objectors – respondents raised the dispute about the title of the deceased over the property sought to be transferred / changed on the basis of the Will of the appellant. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents – objectors have submitted that the objectors being aggrieved by the action initiated by the appellant is entitled to object the grant of probate and any interest however slight and even the bare possibility of the interest is sufficient to entitle the objectors to oppose the testamentary of the documents. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and considering the fair submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and keeping in mind the issue rather objections raised herein, so also the C/FA/663/2025(GJHC240089432025) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026 provisions of Section 295 and 283 of the Indian Succession Act, though the claim of the objectors raised on the ground that the property in question having been leased – out for the period of 99 years and the said period is yet not over and as submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that even while granting the probate the status of the respondent as lessee is not going to be changed or extinguished; nor does the right of the respondents would be jeopardized and the very aspect has also not been considered, which in the opinion of this Court is required to be looked into in light of the provisions of Section 283 read with Sections 263 and 295 of the Indian Succession Act followed by the reasoning that may or may not warrant the probate proceedings to be converted into the suit and since the said issue is succinctly required to be dealt with by the learned Judge which apparently has not been done in the case on hand therefore, on the aforesaid count, the matter is required to be re- considered and for such purpose, it is remitted to the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Court, Ahmedabad. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad to decide the issue afresh in light of the observations made herein above. This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter at this stage and the parties to the proceedings are at liberty to raise all the contentions as may be available to them under the law which shall be decided by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in accordance with the law; uninfluenced by the present order. The parties shall extend their co-operation for expeditious hearing of the matter afresh. The connected application is also disposed of. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/09/2026 14:55:13