Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal, C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Manibhai Amaidas Patel & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Dayabhai Amaidas - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1852 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20071 of 2003
Decided On : 28-03-2005
Revocation of Probate - Indian Succession Act 1925 Section 263
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the grant of probate for the will of Amaidas Patel. The respondent applied for probate without mentioning other heirs, and the probate was granted ex parte. The appellants, who were not named as parties in the initial proceedings, applied for revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant of probate was obtained by concealing material facts from the court, and the advertisement for the probate proceedings was insufficient. The court allowed the appeal and revoked the probate, directing the appropriate District Judge to make all heirs of the deceased party respondents and proceed with the matter as a contentious cause.
Issues: The main issue was whether the grant of probate should be revoked under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, considering the concealment of material facts and the insufficient advertisement for probate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of probate may be revoked for just cause, including when the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance or when the grant was obtained by concealing material facts. The court emphasized the importance of citing all parties with an interest in the succession to the estate and the necessity of fair presentation of facts before the District Judge.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the probate granted to the respondent was revoked. The matter was directed to be heard as a contentious cause, with all heirs of the deceased Amaidas Patel made party respondents.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that the grant of probate can be revoked for just cause, particularly when material facts are concealed from the court or when proceedings are defective in substance (!) (!) .
It is necessary to cite all parties with an interest in the estate, including all heirs, to ensure fair presentation of facts and proper adjudication (!) .
The respondent in this case applied for probate without disclosing the existence of other heirs, and the application was made ex parte, which contributed to the concealment of material facts (!) (!) .
The advertisement for probate proceedings was insufficient, and the publication in a newspaper with negligible circulation was inadequate to inform all interested parties (!) (!) .
The court found that the grant of probate was obtained by concealing material facts, including the existence of other heirs and prior disputes over the will, which justified revoking the probate (!) (!) .
The decision to revoke the probate was based on the grounds that the proceedings were defective and involved concealment, aligning with the statutory provisions that allow revocation for just cause (!) .
The court directed that the matter be heard as a contentious cause, with all heirs of the deceased made party respondents, and emphasized the importance of fair and complete disclosure in probate proceedings (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the probate granted to the respondent was revoked, reaffirming that procedural and substantive defects can warrant revocation of probate (!) .
The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the genuineness of the will itself, but focused on procedural irregularities and concealment of material facts (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of transparency, proper notice, and full disclosure of relevant facts in probate proceedings to uphold the integrity of the process and prevent wrongful grants of probate.
JUDGMENT :
Ruma Pal, J.
Leave granted.
2. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the appellants' application for revocation of probate granted to the respondent. The appellants and the respondent are three of the sons of one Amaidas Patel and Amaidas had two other sons, namely, Ratilal and Thakur Bhai, who are both dead. Ratilal pre-deceased his father and was survived by his widow Shantaben. Amaidas died on 20.2.1985.
3. On the allegation that Amaidas had executed a will on 3.11.1982 in the respondent's favour, the respondent applied for probate of Amaidas's Will on 16.2.2002. In the application for grant of probate, the respondent did not mention the fact that Amaidas had left behind him any other heirs when he died. In fact, in the cause title in the probate application, the opposing parties have been described as "nobody".
4. It appears that the District Judge directed the issuance of a public notice in the local newspaper 'Dhabkar'. A copy of the advertisement unfortunately is not on record. We can only assume that notice was given of the case as described in the cause title. Apart from that the 'Dhabkar' according to the appellants has a very negligible circulation in the locality. On 4.5.2002 probate was granted ex parte to the respondent.
5. On 14.9.2002 Shantaben, the daughter in law of Amaidas, filed an appeal against the grant of the probate. The appeal was rejected on 23.10.2002 by the High Court. In rejecting the appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that since the will had been proved and the lower court had considered the documents, the finding of the learned judge should not be disturbed in appeal.
6. Apart from the fact that we cannot agree with the reasons given by the High Court rejecting Shantaben's appeal, that decision can certainly not preclude the appellants who were not named as parties thereto, from applying from revocation of the grant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.
7. According to the appellants, they came to know about the probate proceedings when they received a notice on 21.12.2002 from the Collector in which the grant of probate in favour of the respondent was mentioned. Immediately thereafter on 7.1.2003 the appellants filed their application for revocation of the probate.
8. The application was rejected by the lower court on the ground that the matter had been finally resolved by the High Court in Shantaben's appeal.
9. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the impugned order according to which the decision of the High Court on Shantaben's appeal operated as a judgment in rem and therefore bound the whole world including the appellants.
10. The appellants have raised several contentions in support of their appeal before us all of which are not necessary to be noted. We are satisfied that the appeal must be allowed in view of the contention, namely, that both the courts have wrongly failed to notice that Section 263 allowed the appellants to apply for revocation of the grant of probate. The relevant extract of this Section reads as under:
11. Explanation: Just cause shall be deemed to exists where:
(b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or
(C) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
Illustrations:-
(i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited.
(iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked.
(iv) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(v) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(vi) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(vii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(viii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12. This would
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
