ORDER Heard. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in Testamentary Suit No. 4 of 2004 pending before the learned Additional District Judge IV, Buxar. The said suit is an outcome from Probate Case No. 1 of 2003. The defendant-petitioner had prayed before the Court for stay of the proceedings of the said testamentary suit on the ground that in respect of certain lands, he had earlier filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No.101 of 1984 which was pending in the Court of Munsif II, Buxar and in view of identity of properties involved and the parties, the latter suit being testamentary suit should be stayed. 3. Having heard the argument, I am not impressed for the simple reason that the two suits are entirely different proceedings. The testamentary jurisdiction of the District Judge is an exclusive extraordinary jurisdiction which has to deal with the probative value of will and certify its genuineness. The Title Suit is altogether a different matter which deals with the right, title or interest inter se the parties. The right, title and interest of parties is not to be decided in the probate case. Therefore, the two proceedings cannot be equated for the purposes of Section 10. This Court had on earlier occasions in several cases held that Section 10 in such a situation would have no application. Recently in the case of Nirmala Devi Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta and others (2005)12 Supreme Court Cases 505, a case arising from this State, under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the District Judge to make it convenient to dispose of both the cases together and, as such, transferred the title suit from the Court of Sub Judge to the Court of District Judge. Similar was the situation in another case in Balbir Singh Wasu Vs. Lakhbir Singh and others since reported in (2005)12 Supreme Court Cases 503. 4. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, I direct the District Judge, Buxar to transfer the Title Suit to the Court before whom the Testamentary Suit is pending and the two should be tried together. 5. This application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observation.