Back
1979 Supreme(AP) 246
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : VENKATESWARA RAO
Saripalli Samsundar - Appellant
Versus
Saripalli Maniamma - Respondent
Decided On : 07-16-79
A person who claims adversely to the testator and disputes the testator's right to deal with the property cannot be regarded as having an interest in the estate of the deceased within the meaning of Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Headnote:
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTIONS 283(1)(C), 286, 295 - PROBATE - CAVEAT - INTEREST IN ESTATE OF DECEASED - ADVERSE CLAIM - LOCUS STANDI TO OPPOSE GRANT OF PROBATE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a petition for probate of a will under Sections 211, 213, and 270 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The respondent, who claimed title to the property in dispute adversely to the testatrix, entered a caveat and filed objections, arguing that the petition should be converted into a suit under Section 295 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent did not have locus standi to oppose the grant of probate because she did not claim any interest in the estate of the deceased. The court relied on the definition of "contention" in Section 286 of the Act, which requires a person opposing the proceedings to have an interest in the estate of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the respondent had locus standi to oppose the grant of probate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person who claims adversely to the testator and disputes the testator's right to deal with the property cannot be regarded as having an interest in the estate of the deceased within the meaning of Section 283(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the respondent did not have locus standi to oppose the grant of probate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower court directing the petition to be converted into a regular suit. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the original petition according to law without registering it as a regular suit.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a petition filed under Section 211, 213 and 270 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, 1925 praying for the grant of a probate of the will annexed in respect of the property described in the schedule to the petition. The petitioners in O. P. No. 57/78 are the appellants before this Court.
( 2 ) THE Petitioners, who are the sons and a daughter of one Saripalli bhaskara Rao, filed O. S. No. 452/73 in the court of the District Munsif, visakhapatnam for declaration of their title to a house and recovery of possession thereof together with past and future profits, claiming to have become entitled to the property under a will said to have been executed by their paternal grand mother, Saripalli Sundaramma. This suit was resisted by the respondent, who filed written statement contending inter-alia, that late sundaramma had no title to the suit property and that she was only a benamidar for her husband, late Samuel in respect of this property, that she should, in any view, be deemed to have perfected her title to the property in dispute by prescription and that the will said to have been executed by late sundaramma is not true, valid and binding on her. She raised a further plea in her written statement and that the suit is not maintainable without obtaining a probate of the will. The petitioners thereafter moved the Court below in O. P. No. 57/78 for the relief stated supra In response to the citation issued by the learned Additional District Judge under Section 283 (1) (c) of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, which will, hereinafter referred to as Act, the respondent entered caveat against the grant of probate and thereafter filed objections pleading among other things, that the petition will have to be converted into a suit and proceeded with in accordance with law as provided in Section 295 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam up-held this objection and directed that the petition be numbered as a suit to determine the validity of the will". Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have come up with this appeal.
( 3 ) THE leaned Counsel for the appellants contend that the Court below erred in directing their petition to be registered as a suit notwithstanding that the respondent had no locus standi at all to enter caveat in view of section 283 (I) (c) of the Act. It is, on the other hand, argued for the respondent that when once there is a contention before the District Judge, he has no alternative except to direct that the proceedings shall take the form of a regular suit as provided in Section 295 of the Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 295 of the Act lays down that "in any case before the district Judge in which there is a contention, the proceeding shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be shall be the plaintiff, and the person who has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant".
( 5 ) THE term contention is explained in Section 286 of the Act to mean (he appearance of any one in person or by his recognised agent, or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf, to oppose the proceeding. But in order to oppose the proceedings, the person or persons concerned must be competent to do so under Section 283 of the Act Clause (c) of sub- section (1) of this Section provides for issuance of citation by the District judge or District Delegate, if he thinks proper, calling upon all the 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. So, in order to be entitled to enter caveat and to take part In the proceedings before the grant of probate, the person concerned should be one that claims some interest in the estate of the deceased. But the case under consideration is not one in which the re
