Case Background
The dispute arises from a family quarrel over the will of one Shanti Devi, wife of late Sardar Avtar Singh. She had four sons and three daughters. After her death, some of her sons approached the civil court claiming rights under an alleged will dated 03.04.1993.
Respondent numbers 1 to 3 filed a Letters of Administration case under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act. They sought grant of letters of administration on the basis of this will, saying it was the last will and testament of Shanti Devi. According to them, the will was duly executed and registered when she was in a sound state of health, body and mind. They alleged that she signed the will of her own free will, in the presence of attesting witnesses, after fully understanding its contents. One Sudarshan Singh identified her before the registering authority.
The Letters of Administration case was registered as L.A. Case No. 227 of 2009. The present petitioners, along with respondent numbers 4 and 5, filed objections to this case. After hearing the objections, the probate proceedings were converted into a contested testamentary suit, and it was renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 30 of 2016, pending before the court of the Additional District Judge X, Patna.
While the Letters of Administration case was still pending, respondent numbers 1 and 2 filed an amendment petition on 20.04.2013 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Through this amendment, they attempted to bring in new facts regarding additional property, which the petitioners say completely changed the nature and scope of the original case.
After hearing both sides, the Additional District Judge X, Patna, allowed the amendment petition by order dated 20.09.2016 in T. Suit No. 30 of 2016 (L.A. No. 227 of 2009). The present petitioners then filed a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC on 19.10.2016, asking the trial court to review and recall the amendment order. On 30.01.2017, the trial court dismissed the review application.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the review and by the original order allowing amendment, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court through the present Civil Miscellaneous No. 676 of 2017.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh, examined whether the trial court was right in allowing the amendment to the Letters of Administration petition/testamentary suit.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that there was no scope in law to amend the L.A. petition in the manner proposed. According to them, the will dated 03.04.1993 already specifically described the property that Shanti Devi intended to bequeath. This property was set out in Schedule I annexed to the petition.
The petitioners contended that the property now sought to be added by amendment was not part of Schedule I and had never been described in the will as bequeathed property. They stated that this property was a joint family property purchased by the father of the parties, Sardar Avtar Singh, in an auction sale conducted by the P.I.T. It was said that although the property, described as Plot No. 67(A), was purchased in the name of Shanti Devi, the entire consideration was paid from the joint family funds.
The petitioners further said that Shanti Devi was a simple housewife without an independent source of income. For this reason, according to them, the nature of this property—whether it was her self-acquired property or joint family property—was itself a major, and still undecided, issue. Allowing the amendment to include this disputed property, they argued, would go to the root of the will case and could not be treated as a minor or formal change.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel defended the trial court’s order. They maintained that the amendment was formal in nature and that the trial court had rightly allowed it. They claimed that the impugned order was just and legal.
The High Court then turned to the legal framework on construction of wills. It discussed Chapter VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Sections 74 and 75.
Section 74 states that a will need not use any technical words or terms of art. It is enough if the wording clearly shows the intention of the testator. Section 75 provides that, for determining which person or what property is meant by words used in a will, the court may inquire into all material facts relating to the persons claiming under the will, the property claimed, and the circumstances of the testator and the family.
These provisions, with illustrations, show that evidence can be taken to clarify what property is referred to in a will where the wording is unclear. However, the key question before the Patna High Court was not merely interpretation, but whether a completely new property, not described in the will’s schedule, could be introduced into the case through amendment.
The Court looked closely at the pleadings in L.A. Case No. 227 of 2009. In paragraph 8 of the petition, the respondents had stated that, being pleased with the services of the petitioner, the mother (deceased) executed the will in favour of the petitioner, depriving her son Harisumiran Singh and the daughters of any interest in “her property detailed in Schedule I.”
The High Court noted that, from this paragraph, it was clear that, according to the original case, Shanti Devi intended to deprive the son and daughters only in respect of the property described in Schedule I. This showed that the case was originally confined to the Schedule I property.
The Court recorded that Schedule I had indeed been appended and contained the details of the bequeathed property. In this schedule there was no mention of the property which the trial court later allowed to be added by amendment.
On examining the will itself, the High Court observed that Column No. 5 of the document gave a clear and specific description of the bequeathed property, and the entire bequeathed property was mentioned there. Again, there was no reference in this description to the property that was now being brought in through amendment.
The applicants in the L.A. case were trying to justify the inclusion of the new property by relying on paragraph 3 of the will. The High Court, however, found that paragraph 3 appeared, on the face of it, to be vague.
The High Court also took into account another set of proceedings concerning the same disputed property. Title Suit No. 496 of 1990 had been filed by some other persons against the testator (Shanti Devi). That suit was decreed in favour of the testator by judgment dated 30.08.2012. Title Appeal No. 68 of 2012 was then filed and was also decided in favour of the testator.
The petitioners’ counsel pointed out that in both the title suit and the title appeal, Harisumiran Singh and all his brothers had jointly contested the case and filed a written statement. In the appellate judgment dated 31.08.2019, the court had held that, on the basis of the auction sale, Shanti Devi and subsequently her heirs were entitled to take possession of the land. It also held that the decree passed by the P.R.D.A. in Eviction Suit No. 07 of 1985 was binding on the plaintiffs/appellants.
From this, the High Court noted that all heirs of Shanti Devi had been found entitled to the property involved in those earlier proceedings. Yet, that same property had now been brought into the Letters of Administration case by way of the amendment allowed in T. Suit No. 30 of 2016.
In paragraph 16 of the judgment, the High Court underlined that major questions remained undecided: whether the property in question was Shanti Devi’s self-acquired property or property purchased by her husband from joint family funds, and whether Shanti Devi intended, at the time of making the will, to bequeath that property to the legatee under the will.
The Court emphasised that these were important factual questions that could only be decided on the basis of specific pleadings from both sides. Such pleadings were lacking in the present proceeding. Therefore, these issues could not be decided incidentally while considering an amendment in the Letters of Administration case.
Against this background, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s order dated 20.09.2016, allowing the amendment to include the additional property, was “not proper and justified.” It therefore set aside the impugned order.
As a result, the civil miscellaneous petition was allowed. At the same time, the High Court requested the trial court to expedite the hearing of T. Suit No. 30 of 2016 and directed both parties to cooperate for early disposal of the testamentary suit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for families involved in will and succession disputes. It reinforces that once a will case is filed describing specific properties, completely new properties cannot easily be added later through amendment, especially when their ownership and nature are themselves disputed.
For heirs and legatees, the decision shows the importance of clear drafting of wills and of accurate schedules of property. Courts will closely scrutinise any attempt to widen the scope of a probate or Letters of Administration case by bringing in additional assets not clearly mentioned in the original will or petition.
The ruling also highlights that questions such as whether a property is self-acquired or joint family property, and whether a testator intended to cover that property in a particular will, require independent and detailed pleadings. They cannot be decided casually while accepting an amendment application.
Practically, for ongoing testamentary suits in Bihar and particularly in Patna, this Patna High Court judgment signals that trial courts must be cautious before allowing amendments that can change the core of a succession dispute.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the trial court allow amendment of the Letters of Administration petition/testamentary suit to include additional property not described in the will’s schedule and whose nature and ownership are disputed?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that allowing such an amendment was not proper or justified, as it went beyond formal correction and raised substantial questions about the nature of the property and the testator’s intention, which could not be decided in this manner. The amendment order dated 20.09.2016 was therefore set aside.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to Title Suit No. 496 of 1990 and Title Appeal No. 68 of 2012, in which Shanti Devi and, after her, her heirs were held entitled to the disputed land. No reported case law citations are mentioned.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 676 of 2017; arising out of T. Suit No. 30 of 2016 (L.A. No. 227 of 2009)
Case Title: Harmeet Kaur & Ors v. Madhusudan Singh & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 226
Advocates: For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Civil miscellaneous petition challenging an order of the Additional District Judge X, Patna, allowing amendment in a testamentary/Letters of Administration proceeding, and challenging the rejection of the review petition.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 29.09.2026
Impugned Orders: Order dated 20.09.2016 in T. Suit No. 30 of 2016 (L.A. No. 227 of 2009) allowing amendment; order dated 30.01.2017 rejecting review.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjNjc2IzIwMTcjMSNO-rUed–ak1–r46vXI=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
