Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010052572026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Test.Cas./2/2026 SMTI DIPALI SARMA AND 2 ORS W/O LATE BIMAL PRASAD SARMA, R/O VILL- GERUA, KALAIGAON TOWN, MOUZA- SILPOTA, P.S.- KALAIGAON, DIST- UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM 2: SMTI. ANKANA GOSWAMI D/O LATE BIMAL PRASAD SARMA R/O AZARA MOUZA- DAKHIN RANI BHOLAGAON P.S.- AZARA DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: SMTI. SANTANA SARMA D/O LATE BIMAL PRASAD SARMA R/O KAMAKHAYADHAM P.S.- KAMAKHAYA DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS PRANJIT SHANDILYA S/O LATE BIMAL PRASAD DAS, R/O WARD NO. 5, MANGALDAI TOWN, MOUZA- CHAPAI, P.S.- MANGALDAI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G JALAN, MS. S BAISHYA,MS C BORA,MR. ANGSHUMAN DEKA,MR S P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 09.06.2026 Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The instant appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order 41 of the CPC, has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and order dated 20.12.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Udalguri in Misc. (Probate) Case No. 01/2023. 3. The appellants herein are the wife and daughters of the deceased, testator, late Bimal Prasad Sharma. 4. The facts leading to the of the filing of this present appeal is that the late Bimal Prasad Sharma, the testator, had executed a Will on 20/11/2019 by which it was stated that after his death his only son/respondent and his heirs will not be entitled to the property mentioned in his Will in any way, and they will not have any claim whatsoever to the property. It was also mentioned that his two daughters and his wife shall be the heirs and owners of all his property, and they may gift, donate, sell, etc., and transfer to their sons and grandsons so that they can enjoy the possession forever. The full contents of the Will dated 20/11/2019 is reproduced here below:- Page No.# 3/8 “ TRANSSLATION TYPE COPY WILL Whereas, Shri. Bimal Prasad Sharma, aged about 68 years, father of late Kirti Prasad Sharma, Village: Kalaigaon Town (Gerua), Post & Police Station: Kalalgaon, Mouza: Shilpota, District: Udalguri, BTAD (Assam). By this will I bequeathed to my daughters Smti. Ankita Goswami and Smti. Santana Sharma and my wife Smti. Dipali Sharma all the movable and immovable properties in my own name and possession. After my death, my only son Shri Pranjit Shandalya and his heirs are not entitled to the property mentioned in this will in any way and they will not have any claim whatsoever to this property. My two daughters and my wife shall be the heirs and owners of all my property and they may gift, donate, sale, etc., & transfer to their sons and grandsons forever so that they can enjoy the possession forever. No one else shall object here and any objection shall be rejected and unacceptable. This is the last and first and only will of my life. After my death, if my son claims my movable and immovable property even during the probate of my will, It will be rejected and unacceptable. Page No.# 4/8 With a sound health, my own will, free mind and without any coercion, today date: 20.11.2019 I executed the will in presence of the witnesses as mentioned below. Sd/- Shri Bimal Prasad Sarma Signature of the testator of the Will Date : 20.11.2019” 5. The testator has since expired on 24/1/2023. Thereafter, the appellants herein approached the Court of District Judge, Udalguri, by filing the Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, praying for grant of probate certificate to the appellants/petitioners. The respondent herein was also a party in the probate proceeding and he contested the case. The said Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, was disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 20/12/2025. While disposing of the said Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, the learned Court below allowed the petition and granted the probate certificate. However, the learned Court below made an observation saying that- “in respect of issue of relief, i.e. Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief/relief (s) as prayed for? It’s an unrebutted fact that the opposite party was the only son of the testator. He has been ostracized as he married to a girl of lower case out of his love affairs. In the ‘Will’ it has been mentioned that his entire properties will be bequeath to his wife and two daughters only. Thus, in my interpretation, the entire properties will confine to his self-acquired properties and will not include the ancestral properties if any, and therefore, the petitioners will be Page No.# 5/8 entitled the reliefs to the extent of proof of self-acquired properties of the testator”. 6. Being aggrieved by the said observation made by the learned Trial Court, the appellants have come before this Court. Notice was served on the sole respondent and by order dated 11/05/2026, this Court had observed that the Postal Tracking Report of the notices sent to the respondent indicates that the notices were delivered to the addressee on 08/04/2026. Therefore, this Court held that the notice issued to the sole respondent is duly served. However, none appears for the respondent when the matter is called. Accordingly, this, appeal is heard in the absence of the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the limited prayer of the appellant herein is that the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 20/12/2025 in Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023, may be modified to the extent that the observations made in the paragraph 7, of the impugned Judgment and Order, may be clarified that the Will includes the entire properties of the testator and not just the self- acquired properties. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs Smt. Kamta Devi, reported in AIR 1954 SC 280. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or Page No.# 6/8 bad is not within the purview of the probate Court. Therefore the only issue in a probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the will and the Court itself is under duty to determine it and preserve the original will in its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained code inso far as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the probate Court. This is clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the probate court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the will. Thus it does no more than establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor. Probate court does not decide any question of title or the existence of the property itself. 9. Relying on the above-mentioned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction by holding that the “Will” would include only the self-acquired properties of the testator. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the probate Court only has to ascertain the genuineness and due execution of the Will and the probate proceedings has to be conducted only in the manner prescribed in the Succession Act and in no other way. He has also submitted that the Court below had to only establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor, and cannot decide any questions of title or existence of the property itself. Hence, Page No.# 7/8 learned counsel has submitted that the observation made by the learned Trial Court that the entire properties would be confined only to the self-acquired properties of the testator is an erroneous finding and needs to be interfered with by this court. 10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the pleadings as well as the records available before the Court. A probate Court cannot go beyond the Will to make observations or determinations regarding the properties involved. Its jurisdiction is limited to verifying the genuineness of the will, not adjudicating title or ownership of property. 11. The primary function of the Probate Court is only to decide the genuineness of the will, i.e., validity, proper execution, and the testator's capacity. So, the grant of probate does not confer any title to property, and it merely enables administration of the estate. Therefore, the learned Court below could have only verified the Will as to whether it was authentic and properly executed, and whether the testator had the mental capacity to execute the will, and to ensure that the will was not obtained through fraud or coercion. And if the above facts and circumstances were proved, grant a probate certificate to the petitioner. However, the probate court cannot determine ownership or title of property. It also can not make observations about property's validity beyond what is in the Will, and it cannot adjudicate whether the property mentioned in the Will actually exists or belongs to the testator. 12. As held in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh (supra) it is Page No.# 8/8 therefore settled law that the probate Court only has to establish the factum of the Will and the legal character of the executor, and nothing more and nothing less. 13. In view of the discussions and observations made, herein above, this court is of the view that the observation made by the learned Court below that the property will be confined only to the self-acquired property is an observation made beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and accordingly, the said impugned judgment dated, 20/12/2025 in Misc. (Probate) Case No.01/2023 is modified to the extent that the observation that the entire properties will confine only to self-acquired properties and will not include the ancestral properties is set aside. 14. With the above directions, the appeal stands allowed. 15. The Registry shall return the Trial Court Records expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant