Synopsis

The appellant (defendant) claimed that his father executed a will in his favour. The trial court dismissed the suit (for non‑joinder) and also rejected the defendant’s counterclaim seeking probate of the will. The first appellate court affirmed. In second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, probate can be granted only to an executor appointed by the will – a beneficiary cannot seek probate; (ii) the will was not properly proved (witnesses did not testify that the testator signed in their presence); (iii) the claim for probate was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the appellant first raised the plea of will in 2004 but filed the counterclaim only in 2016. No substantial question of law arose.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehroz K. Pathan (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 6th May 2026

Citation: Second Appeal No. 218 of 2026 (2026:BHC-AUG:20381)

Core Law: Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 222 (probate only to executor); Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 (three years for probate application); Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14 (female becoming absolute owner).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay bench at aurangabad

Second appeal no. 218 of 2026

Balkrishna rajaram tambe (appellant/original defendant) vs. Mukund rajaram tambe & ors (respondents/original plaintiffs)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice mehroz k. pathan

Date: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.