SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Mrs. Lynette Fernandes – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Gertie Mathias since Deceased by Lrs. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2933 of 2010
Decided On : 08-11-2017
AIR 1955 SC 566 – Relied upon
AIR 1947 Patna 434; AIR 1915 Calcutta 393 – Distinguished
(b) Indian Succession Act – Section 263 – Challenge to probate on ground that it was issued in ‘common form’ and not ‘solemn form’ – English right of ‘common form’ not available in India – Probate granted in favour of the beneficiary after publishing Citation and after due application of mind by the Court – Hence it was solemn form only – Question raised on distinction between common form and solemn form is academic. (Para 9)
AIR 1958 Cal 377 – Cited with approval
(c) Indian Succession Act – Section 263 – Appellant challenging probate of the will alleging fraud – Not adducing any evidence – Not tenable. (Para 10)
(d) Indian Succession Act – Section 263 – Appellant seeking revocation of probate after 36 years as against three years under Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 – Held petition time barred. (Para 12)
AIR 1977 SC 282; (2009) 11 SCC 537; (2008) 8 SCC 463 – Relied upon
AIR 2005 Kar 136; AIR 1991 Mad 214 – Distinguished
(e) Indian Succession Act – Section 263 r/w Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 – Grant of probate a judgment in rem – Limitation starts from date of probate – Instantly, appellant attaining majority in 1965 – Limitation starts from date of her attaining majority, i.e., three years from 09.09.1965 – Seeking revocation of probate on 25.01.1996, after 31 years of attaining majority – Application rightly dismissed by courts below. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
Mrs. Lynette Fernandes (appellant) is one of the three daughters of Mr. Richard P. Mathias and Mrs. Gertie Mathias (original respondent). After the demise of Mrs. Gertie Mathias, her other two children were brought on record as respondents. Mr. Richard P. Mathias died at Mangalore on 05.11.1959, leaving behind a Will executed by him on 11.08.1959 bequeathing all his assets to his wife Mrs. Gertie Mathias. Mrs. Gertie Mathias (original respondent) filed an application for grant of probate which was granted to her by the Trial Court on 09.09.1960, in O.P. No. 26/1960. As on that date, all the three children of Mrs. Gertie Mathias were minors, and the appellant attained majority on 09.09.1965. She filed a suit for partition on 06.07.1995, claiming 1/4th share of the properties referred to in the Will of the deceased Mr. Richard P. Mathias. The same is said to be still pending. The appellant herein did not initiate any action either against her mother or against her other siblings in respect of the Will and the probate in question till the year 1996. The appellant filed P & SC No. 23 of 1996 under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, before the District Court, Bangalore, seeking revocation of probate granted to Mrs. Mathias on 09.09.1960. It means that the appellant approached the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of probate after about 36 years from the date of grant of probate. The learned District Judge dismissed the application both on merits as well as on grounds of limitation. The High Court upheld the findings of the District Judge, and consequentially dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
Finding of the Court:
Courts below rightly dismissed application for revocation of probate.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
This appeal arises out of Judgment dated 30th November, 2006, passed by High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2744/00 (ISA). Facts leading to this appeal are as under:-
Mrs. Lynette Fernandes (appellant) is one of the three daughters of Mr. Richard P. Mathias and Mrs. Gertie Mathias (original respondent). After the demise of Mrs. Gertie Mathias, her other two children were brought on record as respondents. Mr. Richard P. Mathias died at Mangalore on 05.11.1959, leaving behind a Will executed by him on 11.08.1959 bequeathing all his assets to his wife Mrs. Gertie Mathias. Mrs. Gertie Mathias (original respondent) filed an application for grant of probate which was granted to her by the Trial Court on 09.09.1960, in O.P. No. 26/1960. As on that date, all the three children of Mrs. Gertie Mathias were minors, and the appellant attained majority on 09.09.1965. She filed a suit for partition on 06.07.1995, claiming 1/4th share of the properties referred to in the Will of the deceased Mr. Richard P. Mathias. The same is said to be still pending. The appellant herein did not initiate any action either against her mother or against her other siblings in respect of the Will and the probate in question till the year 1996. The appellant filed P & SC No. 23 of 1996 under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, before the District Court, Bangalore, seeking revocation of probate granted to Mrs. Mathias on 09.09.1960. It means that the appellant approached the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of probate after about 36 years from the date of grant of probate. The learned District Judge dismissed the application both on merits as well as on grounds of limitation. The High Court in M.F.A. NO. 2744/00 (ISA) upheld the findings of the District Judge, and consequentially dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The judgments of the District Court and the High Court are called in question in this appeal.
2. It would be relevant to note that the counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the citation ought to have been issued in the District of Chikmagalur where the immovable property of the testator was situated; the application for grant of probate did not disclose the names of the appellant and her other two siblings; Mrs. Mathias ought to have arrayed all the three children as respondents in the application for grant of probate. The appellant also argued that the grant of probate in favour of Mrs. Mathias i.e. mother of the appellant was as a result of fraud played by her on the Court.
3. Per contra, the advocate for the respondent argued in support of the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the High Court. He contended that the Courts have rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellant for revocation of probate, inasmuch as such prayer was made after a long period of 36 years; neither the allegation of fraud nor the evidence in that regard was let in by the appellant; since Mrs. Mathias was the sole beneficiary under the Will, there is no reason for her to make her minor children as party respondents in the application praying for grant of probate; and as the parties were permanently residing at Mangalore, no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the parties, including the appellant for not issuing citation at Chikmagalur, and even if citation were to be issued at Chikmagalur the appellant would not have been benefitted, as she was residing at Mangalore, along with her mother and other siblings since childhood.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note that neither of the parties led oral evidence before the District Judge, which means that when the application was being heard before the District Judge for seeking revocation of probate under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, the appellant did not choose to lead any evidence in support of her case.
5. It is necessary to note the provisions of Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, which
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.