JUDGMENT Naseemuddin, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 25.8.1999. passed by Sri P.N. Rai. District Judge, Unnao in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1998. Raghuvendra Narain Dixit v. Smt. Surya Mukhi Devi, whereby compromise paper No. 22 Ka-1 entered into in between Sudhakar and Raghuvendra Narain Dixit on 21.8.1999 was rejected. The appeal has been filed by Sudhakar S/o Late Kripa Shanker.
2. It appears that an application was given by Raghuvendra Narain Dixit under Section 276 of the Act for issue of probate in respect of the estate of the testator Surya Mukhi Devi alias Suraj Mukhi wife of Badri Narain Dixit in respect of the property detailed in para 6 of the petition, alleging that Surya Mukhi died on 7.8.1998 and that the property detailed in para 6 of the petition was given to the alleged legatee by virtue of Will dated 14.7.1998. In this petition for issue of probate, Raghuvendra Narain Dixit was made opposite party, the Estate of Surya Mukhi Devi wife of Badri Narain Dixit. No other person was impleaded. One Sudhakar, present appellant filed objection dated 22.5.1999 disputing the Will and alleged that no probate could be granted.
3. 22 A-1 compromise was filed by these two persons, the present appellant and respondent No. 1. According to the terms of the deed, the property given in para 6 of the probate petition was given to the petitioner Raghuvendra Narain Dixit, in respect of the other property, viz., the property mentioned in para 4 Aa of petition which is a house situated in village Bara was to go to Sudhakar, present appellant. Similarly the other immovable property which was entered as bhumidhari land in revenue records detailed in para 3 of the compromise was also to go to Sudhakar, the present appellant. Similarly other immovable property mentioned in para 4 of the compromise was to go to Sudhakar. It was also agreed in para 5 that case pending in Revenue and other Courts would be withdrawn. In para 6, it was agreed that Sudhakar would pay an amount of Rs. fifty thousand to Raghuvendra Narain Dixit. It was also agreed that Suryamukhi alias Suraj Mukhi would have no claim to the amount or immovable property except as mentioned in para 6 Aa of the petition of probate. The learned District Judge found this compromise to be beyond the scope of the spirit of the probate and Will and against the wishes of the testator, contained in the Will dated 8.1.1998. Against the rejection of the compromise, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this compromise could apply to the property mentioned in para 6 Aa of the probate petition only, and would not have applied to the property which was to go to Sudhakar, appellant. It may be repeated that all the immovable property went to the appellant according to the compromise as has been detailed in the compromise. In para 2 of the petition of Raghuvendra Narain Dixit it was mentioned that the petitioner had got all the movable and immovable properties of the testator under the Will as her legatee. It was further mentioned that Sudhakar was out to usurp the immovable property of the testator. However, in these probate proceedings, the probate was claimed only with respect to the securities mentioned in para 6 of the probate petition. The compromise in effect was exceeding the subject-matter of the petition. Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act defines probate as follows :
" 'Probate' means the copy of a Will certified under the seal of a Court of competent Jurisdiction with a grant of administration of the estate of the testator."
According to the Law Lexicon also the term "probate" in its strictest sense signifies the copy of the Will which is given to the executor, together with a certificate granted under seal of the Court, and signed by one of the registrars, certifying that the Will has been proved. This probate or copy of the Will constitutes the executor's title to act, the original document being left in the registry. The probate of a Will is a civil proceeding. In contemplation of law, it is solely an inquiry as to the validity of a certain paper writing whether it is or is not the last Will and testament of the decedent and the judgment or decree in such case is either that it is or is not such a Will. 'As applied to a Will, is a proceeding to establish its validity : the proof before an officer authorised by law that an instrument offered to be proved or recorded is the last Will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentary act it is alleged to be."
5. The definition of the word 'probate' clearly shows that the probate is simply a certified copy of the Will under the seal of a Court. In the instant compromise, the two persons divided entire property of the deceased. As to how such a probate could be given under clause (f) of Section 2 was not taken into consideration by the compromising persons. By this compromise, Sudhakar appellant was taking away entire immovable property of the testator. In para 6 of the probate petition, Raghuvendra Narain Dixit wanted a probate only in respect of a certain sum of money which was in fixed deposit detailed in para 6, in the compromise, all the properties left by the deceased for which no probate was claimed were also included. The compromise could have the effect at the first sight to be conferring title in respect of the immovable property on Sudhakar. It has been mentioned above that probate, as applied to a Will, is a proceeding to establish the validity of a Will. The validity of the Will becomes questionable in a case where the one person not being a legatee, is taking away the entire immovable property of the testator which is not even the subject-matter of the probate petition. In the present proceedings, the person who appears to oppose the Will had simply to show whether the Will was invalid. In probate proceedings, it is Will's validity which is of a prime consideration and decision.
6. Learned District Judge had no option but to reject the compromise correctly though gave in brief some of the grounds for rejection. After the rejection of the compromise, the case was fixed by the learned District Judge for disposal of the case. The order under appeal is perfectly correct and in accordance with law. The appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed.