Testamentary jurisdiction and proof of will: District Judge's power survives, and credible attesting evidence can dispel suspicion.

The article explains that the District Judge's testamentary jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not displaced by the Delhi High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction, which is confined to suits. It further notes that the presence of property outside the territorial jurisdiction does not by itself bar a grant of letters of administration, and omission to mention such property in the petition is only an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. On proof of the will, the commentary applies the settled rules under Sections 59 and 63: credible attesting-witness evidence, together with an absence of real suspicious circumstances, is sufficient to establish due execution, testamentary capacity, and voluntary execution.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and grant letters of administration notwithstanding the Delhi High Court Act and the existence of property outside the territorial jurisdiction, and whether omission to include such property in the petition rendered the proceedings incompetent; (ii) whether the propounded will was duly executed and attested by a testator of sound disposing mind and was free from suspicious circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and grant letters of administration notwithstanding the Delhi High Court Act and the existence of property outside the territorial jurisdiction, and whether omission to include such property in the petition rendered the proceedings incompetent.

Analysis: The ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 was confined to suits and did not displace the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of the District Judge under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The statutory scheme of Sections 264, 266 and 300 preserved concurrent testamentary jurisdiction, and the definition of District Judge in Section 2(bb) did not exclude the District Judge merely because the High Court had ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As to the Goa property, the Court held that the mere existence of property outside jurisdiction did not oust jurisdiction over property within jurisdiction. Section 273 dealt with the effect of probate or letters of administration and did not itself create a jurisdictional bar. Omission to mention the Goa property in the petition was only a defect or irregularity and did not render the petition incompetent. The Court also held that the Indian Succession Act had not automatically extended to Goa, and the local territorial question did not defeat the grant.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objections failed and the petition remained maintainable; the finding upholding jurisdiction was rejected only to the extent that the District Judge had held the omission to be fatal.

Issue (ii): Whether the propounded will was duly executed and attested by a testator of sound disposing mind and was free from suspicious circumstances.

Analysis: Applying the settled principles governing proof of wills under Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Court held that the testimony of the attesting witnesses was clear, natural and credible. The discrepancies between the recital in the will and the mode of attestation did not affect validity. The surrounding circumstances relied upon by the appellants, including exclusion of one son, provision for the widow, reference to the partnership business, absence of express mention of Goa property, the management clause in favour of the younger son's family, the testator's ailment, and the alleged firmness of signature, were either explained or insufficient to create a genuine suspicion. The Court found that the testator, despite age and infirmity, retained testamentary capacity and executed the document knowingly and voluntarily.

Conclusion: The will was duly proved, the testator had sound disposing mind, and no suspicious circumstance vitiated the testament.

Final Conclusion: The grant of letters of administration and the appointment of the guardian were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Testamentary jurisdiction of the District Judge is not displaced by the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction, and a will is proved when attesting witnesses credibly establish due execution and the surrounding circumstances fail to rebut testamentary capacity or create a true suspicion.

---