The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a challenge to the testator's title over bequeathed property can be raised during probate proceedings, or whether probate courts are confined solely to examining the will's validity. The bench appointed Rajasthan Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra as amicus curiae to assist in determining whether revocation of probate is permissible on title-related grounds — a question with significant implications for succession law practice across India.

Probate is the court's certification that a will is genuine and that the executor named in it is authorised to administer the estate. Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 57, 213, 263, and 264), probate courts exercise a limited, in rem jurisdiction: they examine whether the will was validly executed, whether the testator had testamentary capacity, and whether it was free from fraud or undue influence. The doctrine of limited jurisdiction of probate courts has historically meant that title disputes — who actually owns the property bequeathed — must be resolved in a separate civil suit, not within probate proceedings.

The Supreme Court's current reference directly challenges this settled understanding. If the Court holds that title can be questioned within probate, it would dramatically expand the scope of probate jurisdiction and create a hybrid forum where both succession and property-rights questions are resolved together. Conversely, affirming the traditional limitation preserves the distinction between probate courts and civil courts of plenary jurisdiction.

For succession law under CLAT PG, this matters because examiners test the nature and limits of probate jurisdiction, the difference between a probate proceeding and a title suit, and the grounds on which probate may be revoked under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. The appointment of an amicus signals that the question is legally unsettled — exactly the kind of doctrinal tension CLAT PG examiners love to test through passage-based MCQs.