# Amit Gupta & Anr v. Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 989
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-11
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 683 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-gupta-anr-v-dinesh-chandra-gupta-ors-54363
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

3 All. Amit Gupta & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors.
989
well aware of the earlier agreement to sell executed by defendant no.1 Tejvir Singh in favour of the
plaintiff, as such, the trial court should have granted the primary relief of specific performance of
the registered agreement to sell dated 3.9.1981, in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court has
certainly erred in granting the alternate relief of return of earnest money of ₹ 41,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 17% per annum.

71. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Consequently,
the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1986 is setaside and the plaintiff 's suit for the
primary relief of specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dated 3.9.1981 is decreed
against all the defendant's.

72. It is further ordered that the defendant no.1 Tejvir Singh after receiving the balance sale
consideration of ₹ 38,500/-along with defendants no. 2 to 7, will execute the sale deed of the
disputed property in favour of the plaintiff within 2 months from today, and will also hand over its
vacant possession to the plaintiff, failing which, the plaintiff will be entitled to get the decree
executed through the court.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 989
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 683 of 2025

Amit Gupta & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether a probate petition filed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 could be rejected merely on the
ground that a subsequently instituted civil suit seeking cancellation of the same Will was pending before a civil
court?
(ii) Whether, in a contentious probate proceeding, the Probate Court itself is competent to adjudicate
objections relating to the genuineness, validity and execution of the Will under Section 295 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925?
(iii) Whether, where a probate proceeding and a subsequently instituted civil suit involve determination of the
validity of the same Will, the proper course is dismissal of the probate petition or consolidation and joint trial
of both proceedings?

Headnotes
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Ss. 295 and 299 - Probate - Contentious proceedings -
Objections to genuineness and validity of Will - Jurisdiction of Probate Court - Rejection of
probate petition on ground of pendency of civil suit challenging same Will - Legality.

HELD: Once objections are raised disputing the execution, genuineness or validity of a Will, the probate
proceedings assume the character of a regular suit under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Probate Court is competent to adjudicate all objections relating to the Will and determine whether probate
ought to be granted. Therefore, a probate petition cannot be rejected merely because a separate civil suit
challenging the same Will is pending before a civil court. The questions raised by the objectors regarding the
authenticity and validity of the Will were liable to be examined and decided by the Probate Court itself in
accordance with law. The order rejecting the probate petition solely on the ground of pendency of a
subsequent civil suit was legally unsustainable. [Paras 10, 16 and 17]

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Ss. 295 and 299 - Probate proceedings - Exclusive jurisdiction
of Probate Court - Validity and proof of Will - Civil Court.

HELD: The question whether a Will has been duly executed and whether probate should be granted falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court. Grant or refusal of probate constitutes a judgment in
rem and is binding not only upon the parties but upon the whole world. Consequently, issues relating to proof,
genuineness and validity of the Will cannot furnish a ground for refusal to entertain or decide a probate
petition merely because parallel civil proceedings have been instituted. [Paras 11 and 16]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S. 24 - O. IV-A (U.P. Amendment) - Indian Succession Act,
1925 - S. 295 - Probate petition and civil suit concerning same Will - Consolidation and joint
trial.

HELD: Where a probate proceeding and a civil suit involve common questions relating to the validity and
effect of the same Will, the appropriate course is consolidation and joint trial of both proceedings. Such a
course avoids conflicting decisions and serves the interest of justice. Since the probate petition had been
instituted prior to the civil suit and the controversy in both proceedings centred around the same registered
Will, the civil suit was liable to be transferred to the court dealing with the probate petition and both matters
were required to be decided together on the basis of common evidence. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 16 and 19]

Probate - Subsequent civil suit for cancellation of Will - Effect on maintainability of probate
proceedings.
HELD: The probate petition had been instituted earlier in point of time and the objectors entered appearance
therein before filing a subsequent suit seeking cancellation of the same Will and partition of the property. The
subsequent institution of a civil suit did not render the probate proceedings non-maintainable nor justify
dismissal of the probate petition. The pendency of the civil suit was no ground to refuse adjudication of the
probate proceedings. [Paras 15 and 16]

Appeal allowed - Order rejecting probate petition set aside - Probate petition restored - Civil
suit transferred to District Judge and consolidated with probate proceedings for joint trial.
[Paras 18 and 19] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs v. Jasjit Singh and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 507
- relied on; Balbir Singh Wasu v. Lakhbir Singh and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 503 - relied on;
Nirmala Devi v. Arun Kumar Gupta and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 505 - relied on; In the Matter of
Goods of Late Rai Bharat v. Vishnu Gupta, Testamentary Case No. 32 of 2014, decided on
14.03.2018 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Indian Succession Act, 1925; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24; Order IV-A, Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (U.P. Amendment by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976).

List of Keywords
3 All. Amit Gupta & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors.
991
Probate; Probate Court; Contentious probate proceedings; Registered Will; Validity of Will; Genuineness of
Will; Exclusive jurisdiction; Judgment in rem; Consolidation of proceedings; Joint trial; Transfer of suit;
Probate petition.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the District Judge, Firozabad in Misc. Probate Petition No. 2
of 2023, Amit Gupta and Another v. Smt. Kalpana Gupta and Others

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Rishabh Agarwal.
For the Respondents: Sri Abhishek Agarwal and Sri Arvind Agrawal.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the
court of District Judge, Firozabad in Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 (Amit Gupta and another
vs. Smt. Kalpana Gupta and others), whereby the petition seeking probate of registered Will dated
31.03.2022 executed by Indra Prakash Gupta has been rejected on the ground that regarding the
same Will, Original Suit No.369 of 2025 (Dinesh Kumar Gupta and others vs. Amit Gupta and
others) is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad, in which the issue will
be decided.

2. Factual matrix is that the appellants filed Misc. Probate Case No.2 of 2023 (Amit Gupta and
another vs. Smt. Kalpana Gupta and others) with the averments that Indra Prakash Gupta was the
owner in possession of the disputed property regarding which, he executed a Will on 31.03.2022 in
favour of the appellants, which was registered on 01.04.2022, who subsequently died on
12.10.2022 and as such, on the basis of Will, the appellants are the owner in possession of the
disputed property. With these averments, it was prayed that the probate regarding the above Will be
granted in favour of the appellants.

3. From the perusal of the record of the lower court, it is evident that initially, the contesting
respondent no.1 Dinesh Chandra Gupta raised no objection regarding the grant of probate in favour
of the appellants but subsequently, the contesting respondents no.1 & 2 Dinesh Chandra Gupta and
Dilip Kumar Gupta filed their objection to the probate petition on the ground that the testator Indra
Prakash Gupta was suffering from cancer and was not in a fit mental condition to execute a Will.
The execution of the Will was disputed by the contesting respondents.

4. It is apparent that the respondent nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, who are the married sisters and
brother of the contesting respondents did not challenge the grant of probate to the appellants.

5. It is also apparent that subsequently, the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2 moved an
application before the lower court that they have also filed an Original Suit No.369 of 2025 (Dinesh
Kumar Gupta and others vs. Amit Gupta and others), for the cancellation of the alleged Will on the
basis of which probate was claimed by the appellants. In the above suit, the contesting respondents
averred that the alleged Will of Indra Prakash Gupta, which was executed on 31.03.2022 and
registered on 01.04.2022, was a forged and fabricated document, which was never executed by
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Indra Prakash Gupta, who was suffering from serious illness and was not in a fit mental condition
to execute the Will. The contesting respondents claimed that the above registered Will be cancelled
by decree of this Court and also the disputed property be partitioned and they each be granted their
1/7th share in the disputed property and accordingly, a preliminary decree of partition be prepared.
It was also claimed that on the basis of preliminary decree subsequently, a final decree be also
prepared by which the disputed property be divided by metes and bounds and during the pendency
of the suit, the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of
the plaintiffs and from alienating it to third party.

6. The lower court by impugned order dated 21.07.2025 has concluded that the probate
petition has been filed regarding the disputed Will of Indra Prakash Gupta and for getting the above
Will cancelled, the contesting respondents have also filed Original Suit No.369 of 2025, which was
pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad in which the issue will be
decided, as such, probate cannot be granted in favour of the appellants and due to this reason, the
probate petition was rejected, aggrieved against which, the petitioners seeking probate have filed
the instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the probate petition was filed earlier in
time by the appellants in which the respondents duly appeared and after their appearance the
Original Suit No.369 of 2025 was filed subsequently for getting cancelled the alleged Will of Indra
Prakash Gupta. Learned counsel submitted that since the respondents were contesting the alleged
Will, as such, under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the lower court had the
jurisdiction to decide the controversy like a civil suit as has been mentioned in that Section and as
such, the lower court has erred in rejecting the probate petition. Learned counsel further submitted
that all the contentions raised by the contesting respondents insofar as the validity of the alleged
Will was concerned could have been examined by the lower Court in accordance with law, as such,
the contesting respondents could not have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Learned
counsel further submitted that merely because the contesting respondents had filed a separate
Original Suit No.369 of 2025, the probate petition could not have been rejected by the lower court.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case law of Chiranjilal Shrilal
Goenka (Deceased) through LRs vs. Jasjit Singh and others, (1993) 2 SCC 507.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the
Original Suit No.369 of 2025 preferred by the contesting respondents was legally maintainable and
the lower court could have decide the suit along with probate petition of the appellants. In support
of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case law of this Court In The Matter of
Goods Of Late Rai Bharat vs. Vishnu Gupta, Testamentary Case No.32 of 2014 decided on
14.03.2018.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and record of
the lower court.

10. Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:
3 All. Amit Gupta & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors.
993

295. Procedure in contentious cases-In any case before the District Judge in which there
is contention, the proceeding shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according
to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in which the petitioner for
probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the plaintiff, and the person who
has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) while examining the
provisions of the Indian Succession Act insofar as the grant of probate was concerned, has held as
under:-

"20. On a conspectus of the above legal scenario we conclude that the Probate Court has
been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will of the deceased annexed to
the petition (suit); on grant or refusal thereof, it has to preserve the original Will produced before
it. The grant of probate is final subject to appeal, if any, or revocation if made in terms of the
provisions of the Succession Act. It is a judgment in rem and conclusive and binds not only the
parties but also the entire world The award deprives the parties of statutory right of appeal
provided under section 299. Thus the necessary conclusion is that the Probate Court alone has
exclusive jurisdiction and the Civil Court on original side or the Arbitrator does not get
jurisdiction even if consented to by the parties, to adjudicate upon the proof or validity of the Will
propounded by the executrix, the applicant. It is already seen that the executrix was nominated
expressly in the will is a legal representative entitled to represent the Estate` of the deceased but
the heirs cannot get any probate before the Probate Court. They are entitled only to resist the claim
of the executrix of the execution and genuineness of the Will. The grant of probate gives the
executrix the right to represent the estate of the deceased, the subject-matter in other proceedings.
We make it clear that our exposition of law is only for the purpose of finding the jurisdiction of the
arbitrator and not an expression of opinion on merits in the probate suit."

12. Order IV-A C.P.C. as inserted by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment)
Act, 1976 (UP Act 57 of 1976), as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, reads as under :-

1. Consolidation of suits and proceedings- When two or more suits or proceedings are
pending in the same Court, and the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice,
it may by order direct their joint trial, where upon all such suits and proceedings may be decided
upon the evidence in all or any of such suits or proceedings.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh and others, (2005)
12 SCC 503, was considering a situation where a probate proceeding along with civil suit was
pending and it was held as under :-

"6. However, having regard to the fact that in this case a large number of issues would
overlap, we are of the view that both the probate proceedings and the civil suit should be clubbed
and heard together by the District Judge who would be competent to hear and dispose of both the
civil suit as well as the probate proceedings. We are supported in the view that we have taken by
the order passed by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Nirmala Devi v. Arun Kumar
Gupta [(2000) 2 All I HLR 436 : (2005) 12 SCC 505] . Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of by
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transferring the appellant's civil suit to the District Judge, Chandigarh. Similarly Probate
Proceedings No. 2 of 1999 filed by the respondents pending before the High Court is transferred to
the District Judge, Chandigarh for the purpose of being disposed of together with the civil suit. The
interim order, if any, already passed in either of the proceedings will continue unless
vacated/modified or altered by the District Judge. No costs."

14. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta and
others, (2005) 12 SCC 505, while considering the pendency of probate case and civil suit has held
as under :-

"4. It has been brought to our notice that settlement is not possible at this stage.
Therefore, now remains the question whether the probate proceedings could be clubbed with the
suit. Learned counsel for Respondent 1 submitted that the civil suit is of the year 1987 and that
despite various orders of the High Court, it has remained pending and the probate proceedings are
initiated by the appellant in 1997 regarding the Will of 1984. Be that as it may, the decision in the
probate proceedings on the question of proof of the Will will have a direct impact on the suit. Only
on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between
the parties, we request the learned District Judge, Gopalganj to make it convenient to dispose of
the probate proceedings being Probate Case No. 11 of 1997 along with civil suit being TS No. 27
of 1987 filed by Respondent 1 at his earliest convenience and preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at its end. The aforesaid TS No. 27 of 1987
pending in the court of the eight Sub-Judge, Gopalganj shall therefore, stand transferred to the
Court of District Judge, Gopalganj and be clubbed with Probate Case No. 11 of 1997 which is
pending in the Court of District Judge, Gopalganj for being tried together. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of. No costs."

15. It is apparent that on the one hand the appellants are seeking probate of Will of Indra
Prakash Gupta whereas the contesting respondents are challenging that Will and they have filed
Original Suit No.369 of 2025 for cancelling the above registered Will, which is pending before the
court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad.

16. It is further apparent that since the probate petition was filed by the appellants prior in time
to the civil suit No.369 of 2025, as such, the probate petition filed by the appellants could not have
been dismissed on the ground that the above civil suit was pending for disposal before the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad. It is further apparent that all the contentions raised by the
contesting respondents regarding the authenticity of the Will could have been decided in the
probate petition itself, as such, there was no need for the contesting respondents to file a separate
suit for getting the alleged Will of Indra Prakash Gupta cancelled. However, since the suit filed by
the contesting respondents is still pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Firozabad, as such, it will be appropriate that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) and Nirmala Devi (supra), the suit is consolidated with the
probate petition and then both the probate petition and civil suit be decided together in accordance
with law after hearing the parties.
3 All. M/s J.K. Enterprises Vs. Commission of Customs (Preventive) U.P. & Ors.
995

17. It is apparent that the lower court has certainly erred in rejecting the probate petition
merely on the ground of pendency of Original Suit No.369 of 2025. The instant appeal has merit
and is liable to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and
order dated 21.07.2025 is set aside and the Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 stands restored to
its original number.

19. In exercise of power vested under Section 24 C.P.C., the Original Suit No.369 of 2025
(Dinesh Kumar Gupta and others vs. Amit Gupta and others) is transferred from the court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad to the court of District Judge, Firozabad and it is consolidated
with Misc. Probate Case No.2 of 2023 (Amit Gupta and another vs. Smt. Kalpana Gupta and
others). The District Judge concerned is directed to decide the probate petition and civil suit
together in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, within a period of six months,
without affording unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

20. Office is directed to send back the record of the lower court, forthwith.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 995
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 258 of 2026 of 2025 with other connected cases

M/s J.K. Enterprises ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the action taken by the customs authorities in seizing and continuing to detain a consignment of
areca nuts was legally sustainable and based on any foundational reason to believe?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - :- A batch of Writ Petitions - filed for quashing the
seizure and continued detention of areca nuts by customs authorities - seizure on the suspicion that the
goods were of foreign origin and unfit for consumption - investigation - samples testing - reported - nuts are
resembled Indian origin and were fit for consumption - statement of the authorities - dissatisfaction, leading
to a second test - detention & seizure - challenged in writ jurisdiction - Applicant pleaded that the seizure
lacked a foundational "reason to believe" and the detention was arbitrary after the goods were identified as
Indian - Court finds that, the respondents could not place any objective material to justify the opinion that the
goods were of foreign origin - authorities' actions were astonishing, arbitrary, and malafide, particularly the
attempt to seek a second report and then ignore its inconclusive nature - held, once no material exists to