11.09.2026 Ct. No.655 Sl. No. 69 Subadip CO 4411 of 2025 Lal Mohan Parui Vs. XXXXX Mr. Souradipta Banerjee, Ms. Fatima Hassan, Mr. Ranjoy Mullick. …for the petitioner (In Court:-) 1. The instant civil revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, being Order No. 37, passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Probate Case No. 19 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking correction/rectification of certain particulars in the affidavit of assets and inclusion of an omitted property forming part of the estate of the deceased was rejected. 2. The genesis of the proceeding lies in the application preferred by the petitioner seeking grant of probate in respect of the last Will and Testament dated 23.03.2021, executed by one Sunil Kumar Parui, since deceased. The said testamentary proceeding was registered as Probate Case No. 19 of 2022. In the said proceeding, the petitioner, being the applicant/executor, furnished the particulars of the 2 landed properties belonging to the deceased and incorporated the relevant details in the schedule of immovable properties appended to the application for probate and in the affidavit of assets filed in connection therewith. 3. The said Will dated 23.03.2021 was ultimately probated by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 19.06.2024. Significantly, during the pendency of the probate proceeding, no objection or caveat was raised by any of the near relations or legal heirs of the deceased. The grant of probate, therefore, came to be made without any contest as regards the genuineness or validity of the testamentary instrument. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, subsequent to the grant of probate, upon making necessary enquiries and verifying the relevant land records from the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Chanditala-I, District Hooghly, certain discrepancies and omissions in the description of the properties came to his notice. It was discovered that, in respect of Plot Nos. 1478 and 1651, the share of the deceased in the concerned properties had been incorrectly stated. It was further found that the relevant R.S. Plot number, of the said two parts, had not been mentioned. In addition thereto, the particulars relating to Plot No. 1739, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1628, including the quantity/area of the 3 land, had also been inadvertently omitted from the affidavit of assets filed in the probate proceeding. 5. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid discrepancies were neither deliberate nor intended to alter or enlarge the testamentary disposition made by the deceased. They came to light only after a subsequent verification of the records maintained by the competent land authority. The petitioner, therefore, approached the learned Trial Court by filing an application dated 02.07.2025, praying for necessary correction/rectification of the erroneous particulars already incorporated in the affidavit of assets and also for bringing on record, by way of supplementary or additional inventory, the property which had subsequently been discovered to stand in the name of the deceased. 6. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025. While rejecting the application, the learned Trial Court, principally, proceeded on the premise that a probate Court, after granting probate, does not adjudicate upon or determine the title of the deceased in respect of any particular property or share mentioned in the Will. The learned Trial Court further observed that the prayer made by the petitioner related to certain changes in respect of the plot numbers in the affidavit of assets filed with the Will itself and, upon such consideration, 4 declined to entertain the prayer for amendment, correction or rectification. 7. The principal issue which, therefore, falls for consideration in the present revisional application is whether, after grant of probate, the executor can seek correction or rectification of an inadvertent or erroneous description of an immovable property in the affidavit of assets and, further, whether an asset belonging to the deceased, which was inadvertently omitted from the original inventory and subsequently discovered, can be brought within the administration of the estate by filing a supplementary or additional inventory/affidavit of assets. 8. In my considered view, the question has to be examined by keeping in perspective the distinction between the testamentary adjudication embodied in the grant of probate and the subsequent administration and identification of the estate of the deceased. The grant of probate establishes the Will as the operative testamentary instrument and clothes the executor with the authority to administer the estate in accordance with the testamentary disposition. Such grant, however, cannot reasonably be understood to mean that every description of every asset furnished in the inventory is thereafter incapable of correction, nor does it necessarily signify that the estate has been exhaustively identified in every factual or descriptive detail. 5 9. The identification and disclosure of the assets of the deceased constitute a distinct aspect of the administration of the estate. An inadvertent mistake in describing an asset which was already intended to be included in the testamentary proceeding stands on an entirely different footing from an attempt to introduce, after the grant, a new property which was never covered by the Will or to alter the substantive testamentary disposition of the testator. 10. Where an immovable property has already been disclosed but its particulars are subsequently found to contain an inadvertent error, for example, an incorrect plot number, incorrect area or share, omission of an R.S. number, incorrect municipal description, boundary or other identifying particulars, the correction of such error would ordinarily be rectificatory in character. Its purpose is merely to bring the record maintained in the testamentary proceeding in conformity with the actual description and identity of the property forming part of the estate. Such a correction, by itself, does not amount to an alteration of the Will or a review of the order by which probate was granted. 11. The Court, however, must necessarily exercise due caution while considering such an application. The petitioner cannot, under the guise of seeking a correction, introduce a property which is fundamentally different from the property covered by the testamentary instrument or seek to enlarge the 6 substantive scope of the probate. The Court is, therefore, required to ascertain whether the proposed amendment is genuinely corrective and whether the identity of the property remains substantially the same. The source of title, the relevant land records, the recitals contained in the Will, the original inventory and the nature and extent of the correction sought would all be relevant considerations for such determination. 12. In this context, Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 assumes considerable significance. The said provision casts a statutory obligation upon an executor or administrator, after the grant of probate or letters of administration, to exhibit before the Court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession of the executor or administrator and belonging to the estate of the deceased. The object of such statutory requirement is to secure proper identification, disclosure and administration of the estate and to ensure that the assets belonging to the deceased are duly brought within the testamentary administration. 13. The statutory obligation to furnish a full and true inventory cannot, in my view, be construed in such a manner as to make an honest omission or inadvertent mistake incapable of rectification once it is discovered. Such an interpretation would run contrary to the very object of Section 317. If, upon subsequent verification 7 of the records, it comes to light that an asset belonging to the deceased was inadvertently omitted or that the particulars of an already disclosed asset were incorrectly recorded, the executor ought, rather than being prevented from correcting the record, to bring the true and complete particulars before the testamentary Court. 14. The statutory scheme, therefore, places emphasis upon the proper and complete administration of the estate, rather than upon perpetuating an accidental error merely because probate has already been granted. 15. At the time of hearing, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to Section 261 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is of particular relevance in the present context. Section 261 expressly contemplates rectification of errors in names and descriptions and also provides for alteration and amendment of the grant of probate or letters of administration in appropriate cases. The provision thus recognises, in statutory terms, that an error in the grant or in the description accompanying the grant is not, in every circumstance, beyond the corrective jurisdiction of the testamentary Court. 16. The significance of Section 261 lies in the distinction between a rectification of an error and a substantive alteration of the testamentary grant. 8 Where the property was already the subject matter of the Will and the probate proceeding, but its description contains an accidental, clerical or inadvertent error, such as an incorrect plot number, area, share, R.S. number or other identifying description, the Court, upon being satisfied about the bona fides of the application and the identity of the property, may consider appropriate rectification. Such exercise does not amount to rewriting the Will or changing the testamentary intention of the deceased. 17. The same principle must logically extend to a property which, according to the petitioner, belonged to the deceased and was inadvertently omitted from the original affidavit of assets but was subsequently discovered during verification of the land records. The omission of such an asset from the original inventory does not, by itself, divest the estate of its character as property belonging to the deceased, nor does it confer any independent right upon a third party merely because the asset was not initially included in the affidavit of assets. The executor remains under a continuing obligation to ensure that the estate is properly identified and administered. 18. It is also relevant that, according to the petitioner, the Will itself contains an express stipulation to the effect that, if any property of the testator is left out or omitted from the schedule, such property may subsequently be brought within the estate/inventory 9 and administered in accordance with the terms of the Will. If that contention is borne out from the testamentary instrument, the same would constitute an additional circumstance requiring consideration by the learned Trial Court while deciding the application. 19. In such circumstances, if a property genuinely belonging to the deceased and covered by the testamentary disposition was inadvertently left out from the original affidavit of assets and its existence was subsequently discovered, the appropriate course would ordinarily be for the executor to place the particulars of such property before the testamentary Court by way of a supplementary/additional inventory or supplementary affidavit of assets. Such a course would advance, rather than defeat, the object of the testamentary jurisdiction, namely, the proper administration of the estate in accordance with the Will. 20. This Court, therefore, unable to accept the broad proposition that merely because probate has already been granted, the testamentary Court becomes completely functus officio in respect of every question relating to correction or rectification of the inventory or affidavit of assets. The fact that the probate has already been granted undoubtedly places limitations upon the jurisdiction of the Court; the Court cannot, under the guise of correction, reopen the validity of the Will, adjudicate a disputed question of title or 10 materially alter the testamentary disposition. At the same time, however, the Court is not powerless to correct an accidental or inadvertent error in the description of an asset or to consider the inclusion of an asset subsequently discovered, where such correction or inclusion is permissible in law and is necessary for proper administration of the estate. 21. The learned Trial Court, therefore, ought to have examined the nature and extent of the correction sought rather than rejecting the application principally on the ground that probate had already been granted. The Court was required to ascertain whether the proposed changes in respect of Plot Nos. 1478 and 1651, the omission of the relevant R.S. number and the particulars relating to Plot No. 1739 were merely accidental or inadvertent errors in description, or whether the petitioner was, in substance, seeking to introduce a different property or alter the testamentary disposition. Similarly, in respect of the allegedly omitted property, the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the relevant land records, the recitals of the Will, the original schedule and affidavit of assets and the materials relied upon by the petitioner before determining whether the property formed part of the estate of the deceased and could appropriately be brought on record by way of a supplementary inventory. 11 22. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and is not ordinarily exercised merely because another view on the facts is possible. However, where the subordinate Court proceeds upon an erroneous understanding of the scope of its jurisdiction and, on that basis, declines to examine a prayer which it was competent to consider in accordance with the statutory scheme, interference becomes warranted. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, in my view, proceeded on an unduly restrictive understanding of its jurisdiction after the grant of probate and consequently failed to examine the application on its true legal and factual parameters. 23. I make it clear that I have not expressed any final opinion as to whether the corrections or the inclusion of the subsequently discovered property sought by the petitioner are, in fact, liable to be allowed. That determination necessarily rests with the learned Trial Court upon consideration of the relevant materials. The petitioner shall be required to establish that the proposed correction is bona fide, accidental or inadvertent, that the property sought to be included genuinely belonged to the deceased, and that such inclusion or correction does not amount to a substantive alteration of the Will or an enlargement of the probate granted by the Court. 12 24. The learned Trial Court shall also remain conscious of the distinction between an application for rectification of the description of an estate and an application seeking adjudication of title. If any serious or contentious dispute as to title arises, the same shall have to be dealt with in accordance with law and within the limits of the jurisdiction of the testamentary Court. The present order, therefore, shall not be construed as conferring upon the probate Court any jurisdiction to finally adjudicate a disputed title which falls outside the scope of probate proceedings. 25. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find that the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in Probate Case No. 19 of 2022, suffers from an error of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in its present form. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered the petitioner's application on its merits in the light of Sections 261 and 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, after examining whether the proposed correction and inclusion are genuinely required for proper administration of the estate and whether they are consistent with the testamentary disposition. 26. Accordingly, the present revisional application is allowed. 27. The impugned order dated 03.09.2025, being Order No. 37, passed by the learned Trial Court in 13 connection with Probate Case No. 19 of 2022, is hereby set aside. 28. The learned Trial Court is directed to reconsider and dispose of the application dated 02.07.2025, filed by the petitioner, afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The learned Trial Court shall examine, inter alia, whether the corrections sought in respect of the properties already disclosed are merely inadvertent or accidental errors in description and whether the property subsequently stated to have been discovered forms part of the estate of the deceased and can appropriately be brought on record by way of a supplementary/additional inventory or affidavit of assets. 29. The learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of the said application, preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order, without being influenced by any observation made herein which may be construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the petitioner's claim. 30. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce before the learned Trial Court all relevant documents and such other materials as may be necessary to establish the identity, ownership and description of the properties in question. 14 31. Accordingly, C.O. No. 4410 of 2025 stands allowed. 32. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 34. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)