Can Challenge To Testator's Title Be Raised In Probate Proceedings? Supreme Court To Decide

Apex Court Appoints Amicus Curiae as It Delves into the Scope of Probate Proceedings

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a crucial question under the Indian Succession Act: can the revocation of probate be sought on the ground that the testator lacked title to the properties bequeathed under a Will? A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice on a special leave petition challenging a Bombay High Court judgment that held that such title disputes fall outside the purview of a Probate Court.

Recognizing the importance of the legal issue, the Court appointed Shri Padmesh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General from Rajasthan, as amicus curiae to assist the Court on a pro bono basis.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Will Under Scrutiny

The case revolves around a Will under which properties were bequeathed by the testator. Probate of the Will was granted on December 13, 2011. The respondents before the Bombay High Court—the petitioners in the present SLP—sought revocation of the probate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Their contention was that the testator herself did not have title to the properties that were bequeathed.

The Bombay High Court's View: Probate Courts Do Not Adjudicate Title

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the revocation application, holding that the respondents' challenge was fundamentally a challenge to the testator's title, which cannot be examined in probate proceedings. The High Court observed that a Probate Court is concerned only with the genuineness and due execution of the Will and cannot adjudicate questions concerning title to the properties covered by it.

In doing so, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300 and G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar (2008) 10 SCC 489. The court noted that in Krishna Kumar Birla , the Supreme Court had specifically held that a person questioning the title of the testator to the property or the testator's authority to dispose of it by Will would be a stranger to probate proceedings, since such questions cannot be effectively adjudicated by a Probate Court.

The High Court also emphasized that the respondents were not claiming any right to inherit the properties through the testator; their case was that the testator herself had no title. Consequently, they had no "caveatable interest" to maintain the revocation application. Moreover, the respondents had already instituted a substantive civil suit where the question of title could be adjudicated.

The Supreme Court's Intervention: Notice and Status Quo

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere and others approached the Supreme Court. The bench, after hearing counsel, condoned the delay and issued notice, returnable on September 21, 2026. The Court also directed that status quo qua the nature, possession, and title of the suit property shall be maintained by the parties in the interim.

Why This Case Matters: Defining the Limits of Probate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court's decision on this issue will clarify the extent to which a Probate Court can entertain challenges relating to the testator's ownership of property. If the Court holds that title disputes are within the scope of probate proceedings, it could open the door for more extensive litigation in probate courts, potentially blurring the lines between succession and property law. Conversely, if it upholds the Bombay High Court's view, it would reaffirm the limited jurisdiction of Probate Courts, confining them to verifying the authenticity of the Will and leaving title questions to regular civil suits.

The appointment of an amicus curiae underscores the complexity and significance of the legal question involved. The legal community will be watching closely as the case progresses.

Key Observations from the Supreme Court

"Considering the importance of the issue involved, we request and appoint Shri Padmesh Mishra , learned Additional Advocate General as amicus curiae to assist the Court ( pro bono )."

"In the meanwhile, status quo qua the nature, possession and title of the suit property, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties."

These orders indicate the Court's recognition that the matter requires careful consideration and that the status quo must be preserved until the issue is resolved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has taken up a matter that could have far-reaching implications for probate law in India. By deciding whether a testator's title can be challenged in probate proceedings, the Court will provide much-needed clarity on the jurisdiction of Probate Courts. The appointment of an amicus curiae and the maintenance of status quo reflect the Court's intention to thoroughly examine the law.