Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1907
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Surendra Singh & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Lord Northbook & Ors. – Respondents
SLP (Civil) Diary No.30645 of 2023
Decided On : 01-09-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.v. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv. Mr. Aditi Vats, Adv. Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pragya Seth, Adv. Mr. Nakul Bansal, Adv. Mr. Nanakey Kalra, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Mr. Abhinabh Garg, Adv. Ms. Niyati Kohli, Adv. Ms. Abhinabh Garg, Adv. Mr. Uday Aditya Jetley Pocha, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Adv. Mr. Uday Aditya Jetley Pocha, Adv. Mr. Aniket Sancheti, Adv. Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv. Ms. Chitra Y Parande, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dev Triguna, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Special Leave Petition – Suppression of an important material fact before Supreme Court is a fact which would dissuade Supreme Court from exercising its discretion to consider the matter any further under Article 136 of Constitution of India.
(2) Probate of Will – Petitioners cannot blow hot and cold at the same time in the very same proceeding as they are estopped from doing so.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Suppression of an important material fact before Supreme Court is a fact which would dissuade Supreme Court from exercising its discretion to consider the matter any further under Article 136 of Constitution of India – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 being discretionary in nature, any suppression by a party approaching this Court for seeking relief under Article 136 of Constitution is a grave and serious reason for declining to exercise jurisdiction in the matter – On that short ground alone, Special Leave Petition is liable to be dismissed. (Para 9)
(B) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 276, 283 and 284 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule I – Probate of Will – Denial of – Impact of withdrawal of objections with regard to grant of probate before Single Judge by petitioners as well as withdrawal of Civil Case would imply that they have no objection whatsoever for grant of probate of Will to respondent-legatees – When Division Bench of High Court has granted probate to respondents, at this stage, petitioners, who claim to be agnates of deceased testator, cannot approach this Court to assail common judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court – They have no locus standi to do so as petitioners cannot blow hot and cold at the same time in the very same proceeding as they are estopped from doing so – Suppression of fact that they had withdrawn Civil Case before Court of Additional Civil Judge before this Court being a very serious and grave issue, it is appropriate to impose costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- each on petitioners – Special Leave Petition dismissed on the ground of locus standi as well as on the ground of suppression of material facts – Permission to file Special Leave Petition also rejected. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
According to petitioners, they are agnates of deceased-testator and have right to assail grant of probate to legatees of testator under Will dated 30.10.1985.
Findings of Court:
In view of dismissal of Special Leave Petition, all consequential steps with regard to grant of probate by High Court shall take place in accordance with law.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Sri Kapil Sibil, learned senior counsel and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.
2. We have perused the material on record.
3. The petitioners herein, who claim to be the agnates of the deceased testator (Sri Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri) have sought to assail the common judgment of the Division Bench in FAO(OS) No.347/2012 & CM APPL. Nos.15602/2013, 20920/2022, 47492/2022; FAO(OS) No. 348/2012, CM APP. Nos.46546-47/2022 & 3579/2023; and FAO(OS) No.211/2013.
4. According to the petitioners, they are the agnates of the deceased – testator and have the right to assail the grant of probate to the legatees of the testator under the Will dated 30.10.1985. When queried by this Court to explain about the locus standi to do so, learned senior counsel, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, drew our attention to the impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well as the order of the learned Single Judge to contend that as agnates they were entitled to a citation under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, “IS Act”) as they had filed caveat under Section 284 of the IS Act. As a result, the application for seeking grant of probate was converted into a testamentary suit. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said suit and the petitioners herein, being the agnates of the testator had the right to succeed to the estate of the deceased testator. In the circumstances, the withdrawal of their objections to the grant of probate is wholly academic inasmuch as the learned Single Judge had declined to grant probate of the Will. Therefore, the petitioners herein were entitled to succeed to the estate of the testator under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). Learned senior counsel further emphasised that owing to the aforesaid reason, the withdrawal of the suit being Civil Case No. 1 of 2005 which was pending on the file of the Court Additional Civil Judge (A.B.) Serial No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) would also pale into insignificance. This is because the right of the petitioners/agnates had surfaced once the learned Single Judge had declined to grant probate to the respondent’s legatees.
5. In this regard, Ms. Arora submitted that the High Court was not right in declining to grant an opportunity to the petitioners herein to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Division Bench. Therefore, she submitted that the petitioners have every locus standi to challenge the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave Petition.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents have made a twofold submission: firstly, they contended that the petitioners herein have abandoned their claim to challenge the validity of the Will because they withdrew their objections to do so in the probate proceeding before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge declining to grant probate of the Will to the respondents herein did not have any bearing on the rights of the petitioners herein.
Secondly, and more importantly, they contended that the petitioners herein in their petition filed under Article 136 of Constitution of India have suppressed before this Court, the fact that they had filed Civil Case No.1 of 2005, precisely for the very reasons for which they had objected to the grant of probate, namely, challenging the validity of the Will. The said suit was withdrawn by filing a formal application under Order XXIII Rule I of the CPC. By order dated 07.07.2010, the application filed by these petitioners along with other plaintiffs in the suit was allowed and the suit was permitted to be withdrawn without any liberty as such. Consequently, the principles enunciated in Order XXIII Rule 4 would apply by way of analogy in the instant cas
