apex court held that
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 – Ss. 263, 276 & 283 – Revocation of probate – Suppression of material facts – Non-impleadment of necessary/interested parties – Failure to issue citations – Probate obtained by concealment – Subsequent purchasers/transferees prior to probate proceedings – Caveatable interest – Scope.
Respondent/daughter of testator filed probate petition in year 2009 on basis of unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976 allegedly executed by her father in her favour – Probate granted ex parte – Subsequently appellants, claiming title through registered sale deeds executed by purchasers from original owner during his lifetime and thereafter by subsequent transferees, sought revocation of probate under Section 263 Indian Succession Act contending that they as well as legal heirs of testator’s two sons were deliberately omitted from probate proceedings despite having caveatable interest in estate – District Court revoked probate holding that Will was not proved, citations were not issued and probate was procured by suppression of material facts – High Court restored probate holding that testamentary court could only examine genuineness of Will and not title disputes – Sustainability.
Held : Grant of probate is judgment in rem binding not merely upon parties to proceedings but entire world. Consequently, every person having even slight or possible interest in estate of deceased is entitled to notice and opportunity before probate is granted. Purchasers or transferees who acquired interest in estate prior to commencement of probate proceedings possess caveatable interest and are persons “who ought to have been cited” within meaning of Illustration (ii) to Section 263 of Indian Succession Act.
Section 263 empowers revocation of probate where grant was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts, defective proceedings or non-citation of necessary parties. Failure to implead persons having caveatable interest coupled with suppression of material facts constitutes “just cause” for revocation.
In present case, respondent herself pleaded in subsequent civil suit filed within eight days of probate petition that her brothers had forcibly obtained signatures of father and alienated suit properties soon after alleged execution of Will. Thus respondent was fully aware that property had already been sold during lifetime of testator and that third-party purchasers and successors claimed interest in estate. Despite such knowledge, respondent deliberately omitted purchasers as well as legal heirs of her brothers from probate proceedings and failed to disclose material transactions before Probate Court.
Record further revealed that alleged Will was executed on 09.01.1976 whereas executant himself sold properties by registered sale deed on 21.02.1976 during his lifetime. Probate petition was instituted only in year 2009 after more than three decades. Such surrounding circumstances, coupled with suppression of prior alienations and omission to cite interested parties, fully justified revocation of probate.
High Court committed grave error in restoring probate without considering mandatory requirements under Sections 263 and 283 Indian Succession Act and without appreciating effect of suppression and non-citation. Though Probate Court ordinarily does not adjudicate title disputes, question whether probate was procured by concealment of material facts and by excluding interested parties squarely falls within jurisdiction under Section 263.
Basanti Devi v. Ravi Prakash Ram Prasad Jaiswal; Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha; G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar; Swaminathan v. Alankamony; Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar, relied on.
(Paras 6.1 to 25)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
Supreme Court undertook detailed examination of pleadings in probate proceedings as well as averments made by respondent in subsequent civil suit. Court found significant contradiction and suppression in conduct of respondent.
Though respondent filed probate petition claiming exclusive entitlement under unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976, she omitted to disclose that:
- her father himself executed registered sale deeds in respect of suit properties on 21.02.1976,
- third-party purchasers had derived title long before probate proceedings,
- and her brothers/legal heirs had direct interest in estate.
Court attached considerable significance to averments in subsequent suit filed merely eight days after probate petition, wherein respondent admitted that:
- her brothers had alienated property,
- signatures of father were allegedly obtained for transfer,
- and third-party encumbrances already existed.
These pleadings demonstrated clear prior knowledge regarding alienations and rival claims. Supreme Court therefore concluded that omission to implead purchasers and legal heirs was deliberate suppression of material facts amounting to fraud upon Probate Court.
On legal principle, Court analysed Sections 263 and 283 of Indian Succession Act and reiterated that:
- probate proceedings are proceedings in rem,
- citations are mandatory to interested persons,
- and even slight interest in estate is sufficient to constitute caveatable interest.
Court harmonised earlier precedents and clarified distinction between:
-
transferees acquiring interest before commencement of probate proceedings, who are entitled to citation,
and - transferees pendente lite, who ordinarily are not necessary parties.
Supreme Court further held that while Probate Court does not decide title disputes, revocation jurisdiction under Section 263 extends to examining whether probate was procured through concealment, defective proceedings or exclusion of persons entitled to citation.
High Court therefore erred in mechanically restoring probate solely on ground that title questions fall outside testamentary jurisdiction.
RATIO
A purchaser or transferee who acquires interest in estate of deceased prior to commencement of probate proceedings possesses caveatable interest and is entitled to citation under Sections 263 and 283 of Indian Succession Act. Probate obtained by suppressing prior alienations, omitting interested parties or concealing material facts constitutes defective and fraudulent proceeding liable to revocation. Though Probate Court does not adjudicate title disputes, it is fully competent under Section 263 to revoke probate obtained through non-disclosure and exclusion of persons who ought to have been cited.
