Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030002622025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/15/2025 Smt. Zorengpuii and Another D/o Chawngroliana (L), R/o Chanmari, Aizawl 2: Sh. Joshua Vanlalpek VERSUS Smt. C. Vanlalchhuangi W/o Chawngroliana (L), R/o Chanmari, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr A.R. Malhotra BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO J UDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL) 16.07.2026 Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 20.09.2024, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) – V, Aizawl in Probate Case No. 16/2024, Page No.# 2/5 by which the Will dated 11.08.2023 left behind by late Chawngroliana, who is the father of the appellants and the husband of the respondent has been probated and thereby granting ownership of the property left behind by him covered by LSC No. 90/1971. 3. The appellants contend that they are the children of late Chawngroliana born out of marriage by late Chawngroliana with his first wife, Smt. Lalngaihawmi and that the sole respondent is the second wife of late Chawngroliana. The property in question belongs to Sh. A. Rohnuna, their grandfather, who although had left behind a Will in respect of the said property, the same was not probated and the property is still registered in his name. Since the Will of late A. Rohnuna was not probated, late Chawngroliana, their father, could not have made the Will in favour of the respondent, as the property was not inherited by him from late A. Rohnuna and the appellants being the grand children of Sh. A. Rohnuna, equally have the right to the property in question. The appellants have also questioned the Will dated 11.08.2023 on the ground that Sh. Chawngroliana could not have excluded them in the Will, since they are his very own children. Therefore, according to the appellants, the Will could not have been probated in favour of the respondent. Page No.# 3/5 4. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel submits that the respondent had applied for probate of the Will without the knowledge of the appellants and thereby depriving the appellants the opportunity to contest the said probate case. He submits that it appears that a newspaper publication was done on a local daily, which is not even widely circulated. Therefore, the appellants did not have any information about the application for probate of the Will made by the respondent so as to take necessary steps in that regard. The learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the appellants may be given an opportunity to contest the probate case by remanding the matter back to the learned Probate Court. 5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that late A. Rohnuna left behind a Will, which was not probated. Sh. Chawngroliana, however by virtue of being the son of Sh. A. Rohnuna otherwise has every right to inherit the property of his father, since the inheritance of a property starts to flow automatically with the death of the property holder as held by this Court in the case of Malsawmkima Vs. Laltlankima & Ors, reported in 2022 5 GLT 685. Therefore, even without probating the Will of Sh. A. Rohnuna, Sh. Chawngroliana had indeed inherited the property in question. 6. He further submits that the appellants on one hand submits that the Page No.# 4/5 property in question does not belong to Sh. Chawngroliana, but to their grandfather, Sh. A. Rohnuna, but on the other hand, they maintain that the Will left behind by Sh. Chawngroliana is fabricated. The same therefore would imply that they accept the fact that Sh. Chawngroliana had inherited the property. The same only amounts to taking contradictory stand, which only reveals that the appellants have no case and cannot have any claim on the property in question. 7. From the above projection, what can be gathered is that the appellants admittedly are the children of late Sh. Chawngroliana and also the grandchildren of Sh. A. Rohnuna, while the sole respondent is the second wife of late Sh. Chawngroliana. The probate of the Will according to the appellants was without their knowledge, despite being one of the contenders for the property in question by virtue of being the children of late Sh. Chawngroliana. The same in fact was processed without their knowledge in view of the fact that there was no wide publicity about the application for probate of the Will of Sh. Chawngroliana, let alone information given to them by the respondent. 8. Considering the respective claim made by the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants should be given an opportunity to contest the probate case, having regard to their relation to late A. Rohnuna and late Chawngroliana by remanding the matter back to the Probate Court. Page No.# 5/5 9. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) – V, Aizawl in Probate Case No. 16/2024 is set aside and the matter remanded back to the same Court for fresh consideration by giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned including the present appellants. 10. Since the appellants as well as the respondent are represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) – V, Aizawl on 29.07.2026 and upon their appearance, the learned Probate Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and take a decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of appearance of the parties. 11. It is also provided herein that any observation made in the instant order shall not be taken into account by the Probate Court and rather the Probate Court should arrive at its own conclusion independently without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. 12. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant