The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
Introduction
Does the option to seek justice imply the right to be denied it? This is the core paradox that has long shadowed the venerable halls of Indian testamentary law. The Indian Succession Act, 1925, stands as a legislative Janus, presenting two faces to the world of wills: for certain instruments, particularly those originating from specified metropolitan areas, the Act decrees probate and the solemn judicial affirmation of authenticity as an indispensable legal key, without which the will is dead in the eyes of the law. Yet, for the vast majority of wills executed across the subcontinent, the statute retreats into a markedly permissive shadow, making probate an entirely discretionary choice for the interested legatee. This duality—the mandatory versus the optional — created a subtle but compelling tension in contemporary jurisprudence, raising the profound question: When a party voluntarily seeks the highest certainty (a court decree) even though the law doesn’t compel it, can the judiciary legitimately decline to engage? The Allahabad High Court, in its recent and luminous pronouncement in Vivek Singhal v. Smt. Vijaya Rani Singhal1 (2025), delivered the elegant resolution, reaffirming the fundamental principle that statutory optionality does not equate to a forfeiture of judicial jurisdiction. The court decisively established that the Indian Succession Act permissive clause is a shield for the legatee, not a shackle on the court, ensuring the judicial heartbeat continues to pulse, duty-bound to consider any petition that seeks the unassailable validation of a will.
The Statutory Architecture: Balancing Compulsion and Discretion
At the heart of this judicial engagement lies a careful calibration between mandatory and discretionary probate under Sections 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Probate is compulsory for Wills under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57, typically involving immovable property within specified jurisdictions (Bombay, Chennai, and Madras). Conversely, Wills under clause (c) fall outside these strictures, rendering probate optional. Crucially, Section 213 reinforces this framework by imposing obligations only where Section 57 mandates, ensuring that judicial discretion is preserved while enabling the verification of testamentary intent. The distinction, therefore, is one of obligation, not of the court’s jurisdiction. It is precisely within this discretionary space that optional probate emerges, allowing courts to exercise oversight even where statutory compulsion is absent.
The principle that courts may entertain probate petitions even in the absence of statutory compulsion reflects a highly nuanced understanding of judicial discretion and the expansive reach of justice. Optional probate is not a mere indulgence; it embodies a recognition of the judiciary’s plenary power to bring finality to matters of legal consequence. In Mahesh N. Bhat v. Mark Uppaluri (2018)2, the Bombay High Court emphasized the elasticity of probate jurisdiction, illustrating that the court’s authority persists even when the traditional territorial nexus is tenuous. The Court affirmed that probate could be sought voluntarily, underscoring that statutory optionality does not constrain judicial engagement and highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring clarity and certainty in estate administration.
This principle finds particular resonance within the framework of Hindu succession, where optional probate empowers courts to uphold the integrity of testamentary instruments even in the absence of legislative compulsion. In Vidhayaram @ Brajeshkumar Damodarprasad v. Devlal Moolchand (1980)3, the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a will falling under the optional category of Section 57(c). The Court held that an outright refusal to entertain such a petition would constitute a misinterpretation of legislative intent. By reaffirming its authority to scrutinize and validate wills even when probate is optional, the Court underscored a crucial principle: statutory permissiveness strengthens judicial oversight rather than undermining it. This ensures that the testator’s intentions are respected while procedural equity is maintained, confirming that the court’s role as the final adjudicator of a will’s authenticity is never suspended.
The protective logic of optional probate is not confined to Hindu succession but extends universally, applying across diverse testamentary frameworks and religious contexts. In the Goods of Nurun Nahar (Deceased) v. Sk. Abdul Rasool & Ors. (2011)4, the Calcutta High Court considered a Mohammedan will where probate was optional. The Court held that discretionary probate does not bar judicial consideration. By retaining the authority to entertain such petitions, courts ensure that beneficiaries’ interests are safeguarded and estate administration remains orderly. This illustrates that optional probate serves as a deliberate mechanism for dispute prevention and legal clarity, transcending faith-based or doctrinal distinctions and reinforcing the judiciary’s central role as custodian of testamentary integrity.
Reconciling Flexibility with Finality: The Doctrinal Equivalence of Optional Probate
The flexibility afforded by optional probate does not imply a relaxation of the law’s procedural rigor. All foundational doctrines that govern mandatory probate—including principles such as Res Judicata—apply with equal force to petitions brought voluntarily. Optional probate is thus subject to the same meticulous scrutiny, ensuring that judicial discretion does not devolve into uncertainty or invite repeated challenges.
The Nagpur High Court, in Damodarlal Sunderlal v. Gopiath Sunderlal (1955)5, elucidated this alignment, emphasizing that an optional probate petition, once granted, carries the same conclusive effect in rem as a mandatory probate. In other words, the validity of the will is definitively settled and binding upon all parties. Optional probate therefore embodies a controlled and principled discretion: it empowers petitioners to seek legal certainty while simultaneously reinforcing the judiciary’s central role as the custodian of testamentary integrity and procedural finality.
In this sense, optional probate is not a deviation from doctrinal rigor but a sophisticated extension of it. By harmonizing flexibility with the immutable demands of judicial oversight, the law ensures that voluntary probate achieves the same protective, clarifying, and conclusive functions as compulsory probate, maintaining coherence, equity, and predictability within the administration of estates.
Principles of Natural Justice and Doctrinal Resilience: Reinforcing Judicial Primacy through Optional Probate
The mechanism of optional probate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, stands not as a lapse in legal discipline, but as a sophisticated extension of judicial oversight. Within this discretionary ambit, adherence to doctrinal rigor remains imperative. By ensuring that a strict literal interpretation of Sections 57 and 213 does not compromise the fundamental principles of natural justice and natural equity, the law prevents misapplication and safeguards the core testamentary intent. Optional probate thus constitutes a deliberate equilibrium: it harmonizes statutory flexibility—the permissiveness allowing voluntary application with the immutable demand for doctrinal fidelity. This convergence reinforces the court’s custodial role over wills, ensuring procedural coherence and maintaining predictability in estate administration. Consequently, the protective, clarifying, and finalizing functions of optional probate operate with the same authority and certainty as their mandatory counterparts.
Conclusion
Optional probate exemplifies the balance between statutory flexibility and judicial authority. While mandatory probate ensures procedural rigor, optional probate allows beneficiaries to seek validation voluntarily, without limiting the courts’ oversight. It functions as a preventive mechanism, mitigating disputes, ensuring clarity, and safeguarding testamentary intent. Courts apply the same scrutiny and confer equivalent in rem conclusiveness as mandatory probate, maintaining doctrinal consistency and adherence to Res Judicata. Far from procedural indulgence, optional probate is a calibrated instrument that harmonizes discretion with finality, reinforcing judicial oversight and exemplifying the enduring sophistication of the Indian Succession Act.
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla, Bhumika Arora(Intern), Nidhi Kumari (Intern)
