Bombay High Court Clarifies Limits of Probate Challenges: Title Disputes Have No Place in Revocation Proceedings

In a significant ruling that reinforces the narrow scope of probate proceedings, the Bombay High Court has held that an application for revocation of probate cannot be sustained when the challengers seek to question the testator's very title to the properties bequeathed under the will. The decision underscores that probate courts deal exclusively with the genuineness and due execution of wills, not disputes over ownership or succession lines outside testamentary law.

A Family Inheritance Battle Rooted in Satara Properties

The dispute traces back to a Will executed on 23 August 2005 by Nalini alias Rajeshwari Nagarkar, who bequeathed certain properties in Satara—including houses and plots—to her son-in-law Sunil Waman Bhide while dividing the remainder among her three children. Following the testator's death in 2008, the named executor secured probate from the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in 2011.

Years later, Rajeshwari's brother Laxman Gopal Kanhere and his son Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere filed a miscellaneous application seeking revocation under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act. Their core contention was that the testator never held valid title to the properties, having been disinherited by an earlier will made by their mother Radhabai in 1997. This claim formed the bedrock of their revocation bid and triggered multiple rounds of litigation over maintainability.

Opposing Stands on Maintainability Unfold

Appearing for the applicant Sunil Waman Bhide, counsel Dr. Chandrachud argued that persons questioning a testator's title or capacity to dispose of property are strangers to probate proceedings. He relied on binding precedents establishing that caveatable interest exists only where revocation would allow the challenger to inherit through an alternative line of succession that the probate otherwise defeats.

Senior Advocate Gorwadkar, representing the respondents, countered that the probate itself was superfluous since the properties lay outside Mumbai's original civil jurisdiction. He insisted the real dispute concerned title to the properties, a matter that must be resolved elsewhere but justified revocation to prevent the applicant from asserting rights on the strength of an allegedly invalid grant. The respondents had already filed a substantive suit on the title question.

Reconciling Conflicting Supreme Court Views

Justice Sandeep V. Marne carefully navigated divergent Supreme Court pronouncements. While G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar suggested that even a slight interest permits a caveat, the court harmonised this with the more detailed analysis in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha , which the later Saroj Agarwalla decision had followed.

The decisive distinction lay in the factual matrix: G. Gopal involved caveators who stood to inherit through the testator himself via a settlement deed, whereas here the challengers asserted independent ownership hostile to the testator's title entirely. Justice Marne held that such parties fall outside the class of persons with caveatable interest, as revocation would not enable them to succeed through any line of succession from the testator.

Pivotal Observations from the Bench

Justice Marne crystallised the governing principle in clear terms:

> "Any person questioning existence of title in respect of the estate or capacity of the testator to dispose of the property by will on ground outside the law of succession would be a stranger to the probate proceeding inasmuch as none of such rights can effectively be adjudicated therein."

The court further emphasised:

> "In the present case, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are questioning the title of the testator claiming that she was not the owner of the properties in respect of which she made the Will. That issue is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Probate Court."

Rejecting arguments that probate was granted without jurisdiction, the judgment clarified that Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act merely identifies wills where probate is compulsory; probate remains optional yet permissible for wills concerning properties outside presidency towns.

Final Ruling and Its Wider Implications

Allowing the civil revision application, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and declared the miscellaneous application for revocation non-maintainable. The revocation plea was accordingly dismissed.

The ruling sends a clear message: probate proceedings cannot be converted into title suits. Parties asserting adverse title claims must pursue their remedies through regular civil suits rather than clogging probate courts with questions beyond their limited jurisdiction. This judgment is likely to streamline probate litigation across Maharashtra by deterring meritless revocation applications rooted in ownership disputes.