Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan – Petitioner
Versus
Ajit Singh & Others – Respondents
SLP (C) No(s).14721-14723 of 2024
Decided On : 01-09-2025
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 29 – Section 29 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 29 and 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Probate of Will – Grant of – Challenge by State on the premise that properties of Testator have been escheated – If Will fails then intestate succession under Personal Law as applicable to testator would apply – It is only when there is failure of heirs, under the Act that Section 29 of Act would apply and estate of intestate would devolve on Government, which would take the property subject to all obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject – When male Hindu dies upon making a testament or a Will, provisions of Succession Act, would apply – If Will is probated or proved before a competent Court of law, then legatees under Will would succeed to demised testator’s properties – However, if Will is held to be invalid by a competent Court of law and there is also failure of heirs, then in terms of Section 29 of the Act, State will have right to apply Doctrine of Escheat and properties of deceased testator would devolve on Government – Till that stage arrives, Government is a stranger to probate proceedings as well as any proceeding regarding succession under personal law – This is a case of testamentary succession and Section 29 of the Act would not apply – Special Leave Petitions filed by State of Rajasthan dismissed on the ground of locus standi. (Paras 4, 5.2, 5.4, 6.2, 6.5, 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
By impugned common judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, it has upheld the validity of the Will executed at Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 30.10.1985 by the testator, in the presence of two witnesses. Said order is sought to be assailed by the State of Rajasthan on the premise that the properties of the testator have been escheated.
Findings of Court:
State of Rajasthan has no locus standi to challenge judgment of Division Bench of High Court as Will of deceased testator has been probated and, therefore, Section 29 of the Act would not apply.
Result : Special Leave Petitions dismissed on the ground of locus standi.
ORDER :
The State of Rajasthan has preferred these Special Leave Petitions assailing the common judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed 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.
1.1 FAO(OS) No.349/2012 was filed by the petitioner-State of Rajasthan impugning the judgment to the extent that the trustees of the Khetri Trust, who were the appellants in FAO(OS) No.347/2012, were permitted to be impleaded.
1.2 By the impugned common judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, it has upheld the validity of the Will executed at Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 30.10.1985 by the testator, Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri in the presence of two witnesses, Sri P.N. Khanna and Sri R.K. Singh. The High Court has also held that there has been compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, “IS Act”) and the Will has been proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”, for short). As a result, the probate of the Will has been granted by the High Court.
1.3 The said order is sought to be assailed by the State of Rajasthan on the premise that the properties of the testator have been escheated. The locus standi of the State Government to assail the order of the Division Bench of the High Court is a preliminary question which has to be considered.
2. In State of Rajasthan vs. Lord Northbrook, (2021) 16 SCC 400 (“State of Rajasthan”), the facts are that Sri Raja Sardar Singh, (aforesaid testator) had died on 28.01.1987 without any legal heir. However, he had executed a Will on 30.10.1985 and a Codicil on 07.11.1985. On the basis of the Will/Codicil, a trust called “Khetri Trust” was constituted with four trustees. Based on the Will, one Parmeshwar Prasad and the trustees of the Khetri Trust filed a testamentary case seeking probate of the Will as well as the Codicil. The agnates of Sri Raja Sardar Singh (testator) raised objections against the grant of probate. When the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, it was stated that the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 had already been invoked and the State of Rajasthan had taken possession of some of the properties of the testator. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 and held that it was for the State of Rajasthan to decide in accordance with law in pursuance of the proceedings taken under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. The executors of the Will/trustees preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the Division bench of the Delhi High Court. By the impugned common judgment, the probate of the Will/Codicil of the testator (Sri Raja Sardar Singh) has been granted. It is against the said common judgment that the State Government has preferred these Special Leave Petitions.
2.1 In the aforesaid case, which was an appeal which arose out of judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in Parmeshwar Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 10218, the High Court had quashed the communication/orders with regard to the taking over of the properties of Sri Raja Sardar Singh (testator) by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. There is a reference to a larger Bench owing to divergent opinions of Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
2.2 While Banumathi J. has opined that since Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 then pending before the High Court of Delhi for grant of probate of the Will, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the testamentary appeal is pending before the Division Bench, “there is no rightful owner as per the Will”. Her Ladyship further observed that having withdrawn the objections in the probate proceedings, respondent Nos.5 to 9 therein were estoppe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
