Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Mrs. Elizabeth Antony, Petitioner
Versus
Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, Respondent
S.L.P. (Civil) No.8896 of 1985 (with C.M.P. No.28592/88), D/- 12-4-1990.
– see decision in the case of Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengara, AIR 1990 SC 1576 = 1990(2) CCC 133, where it was held that, admittedly neither the original nor a copy of the Will said to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne, was filed. Now coming to the trust, it is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that John Browne trust has come to an end in March, 1972 and the same was not in existence. The Trial Court has considered both the documentary and oral evidence in this regard and has rightly held that the petitioner has no existing benefit from the trust. Likewise the registered gift–deed or a copy of it has not been filed. Before the learned single judge of the High Court also same contentions were put forward. The learned judge observed that from the objections of a gift–deed and the Trust deed. It is observed:
“Equally, the petitioner has not placed before the Court, the Will dated 23.6.1975 stated to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne to establish that under the Will dated 12.3.1962 stated to have been executed by Mary Aline Browne some interest given to the petitioner under the Will dated 23.6.1975 of Zoe Enid Browne, is liable to be in any manner affected or otherwise displaced, by the grant of letters of administration in respect of the Will dated 12.3.1962 stated to have been executed by Mary Aline Browne”.
Accordingly the learned Judge held that the petitioner has not established that she has a caveatable interest justifying her opposition to the probate proceedings for grant of letters of administration. In this state of affairs. “We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner has caveatable interest”.
– see decision in the case of Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengara, AIR 1990 SC 1576 = 1999(2) CCC 133, where it was held that, the learned counsel, however, lastly submitted that the petitioner inspite of having substantial interest in the estate is losing her right, to prove that the alleged Will by Miss Zoe Enid Browne is not a genuine one and that it is a fictitious one. It was pointed out that by granting a probate, the Court is not deciding the disputes to the title. Even with regard to a probate granted, it can be revoked as provided under Section 263 of the Act in any one of the cases mentioned therein. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the sub–Court and the High Court regarding the caveatable interest will come in the petitioner’s way in seeking revocation of the grant of probate. The court observed that the findings regarding the caveatable interest of the petitioner have a limited effect and are relevant only to the extent of granting or probate. But they cannot deprive his right, if he has any, to invoke Section 263 of the Act and it is up to the petitioner to satisfy the Court.
Judgment
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- We have heard both the sides and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage.
2. This petition is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court confirming the order passed by Re the Subordinate Judge; Nilgirls. The matter arises under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act for short) and the facts that gave rise to the petition are as follows:
3. The testatrix Mary Aline Browne was the wife of Herbet Evander Browne who was the eldest son of one John Browne. The testatrix had a daughter of the name of Zoe Enid Browne and she died on 8-10-1977. The respondent claiming to be the beneficiary to, the estate of Mary Aline Browne who died on 28-3-1972 under the terms of a Will said to have been executed by her on 12-3-1962 filed an application for letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed in the Sub Court, Nilgiris. The same is numbered as O.P. No. 23 of 1980. Along with the application the respondent also filed an affidavit of an attestor of the Will. In that proceedings, the petitioner and her deceased husband lodged a caveat on the ground that the said Mary Aline Browne did not execute any will and the will propounded by the respondent was a fictitious and forged one, intended to disentitle Zoe Enid Browne, daughter of the testatrix from claiming interest in the estate of her mother. The petitioner also claimed that Zoe Enid Browne executed a Will dated 23-6-75 in favour of the petitioner and that she also. executed a gift-deed in her favour. The petitioner also claimed that she was a trustee of John Browne Trust and that, therefore, the petitioner has caveatable interest. Thus they opposed the probate of the Will. Before the Sub Court, several documents were filed. The respondent herein contested the caveat stating that the petitioner herein has no interest in the estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner is not in any manner related either to Mary Aline Browne or Zoe Enid Browne. The learned single Judge of the High Court in an elaborate order having considered the rival contentions dismissed the Civil Revision Petition holding that the petitioner cannot claim to be a person who has a caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased testatrix Mary Aline Browne. We are told that the Will has subsequently been probated and the letters of administration have been granted.
4. The learnned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below have erred in holding that the petitioner has no caveatable interest. It is submitted that the petitioner is executor and legatee of the Will dated 23-6-1975 executed by Miss Zoe Enid Browne daughter of Mrs. Mary Aline Browne and that Miss Zoe has also executed a registered gift-deed dated 29-3-74 in respect of the second item of the estate and that the petitioner was also appointed a trustee of John Browne Trust on 11-6-1975 and, therefore, in law the petitioner has an interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the Will and thus has caveatable interest.
5. Under Section 283 of the Act, the District Judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks proper, issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. Section 284 provides for lodging caveat against grant of probate or administration. Section 285 lays down that no proceeding shall be taken on a petition for probate or letters of administration after a caveat against the grant thereof has been entered until the notice has been given to the caveator. Section 286 deals with the power of a District Delegate and lays down that he shall not grant probate or letters of administration in any case in which there is "contention" as to the grant, or in which it otherwise appears to him that probate or letters of administration ought not to be granted in this Court. Under Section 288 where
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
