2001 Supreme(Bom) 388
Bombay High Court
A.B.PALKAR
Everest Agencies, Bombay - Appellant
Versus
Ishrat Rafique Sharif - Respondent
Decided On : 04/12/2001
N. K. Mudhaney, for Petitioners; M. P. S. Rao with N. R. Mody i/b. Rustamji and Ginwala, for Respondent.
A person must have a caveatable interest in the property left by the deceased to seek revocation of Probate under S. 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
Headnote:
Revocation of Probate - Property Title Dispute - Indian Succession Act, S. 263
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought revocation of the Probate granted to the respondent, claiming suspicion in the genuineness of the Will due to various circumstances, including the deceased's thumb impression, timing of the Will, and lack of provision for certain relations. The respondent opposed, stating the petitioners had no caveatable interest in the property and should approach the appropriate forum for title dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not have a caveatable interest in the property left by the deceased and were actually challenging the title of the deceased to the property, which should be addressed in the appropriate court. The court dismissed both petitions with costs.
Issues: Caveatable interest in property, genuineness of the Will, title dispute
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that in its testamentary jurisdiction, it does not decide title to the property but only considers the genuineness of the Will. It emphasized that a person must show an interest in the property left by the deceased to seek revocation of Probate under S. 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
Final Decision: Both petitions seeking revocation of Probate were dismissed with costs.
2. One petition is filed by Everst Agency and the other by its partner Anand Swarup Mehta claiming to be owners of the office situated at Flat 103-C 1st floor, Sukh Sagar Co-operative Society Ltd. Mumbai. The deceased died on 20-1-93. Probate was earlier granted on 3-1-93. According to the petitioners the circumstance that the Will was executed about 25 days prior to her death by the deceased is a circumstance which creates suspicion in the genuineness of the Will. The deceased was a Shia Muslim and was not entitled to bequeath more than 1/3rd of her share in the estate. The petitioners have purchased the aforesaid flat which is shown as items 4 and 5 of Schedule I annexed to the Probate. These items were added to the schedule by an amendment allowed by this Court on 8-12-1999 in the aforesaid petition. According to the petitioners this flat was sold to them by the deceased by an agreement dated 20-4-1982. In Petition No. 65/2000 it is specifically contended that the deceased had made an earlier Will on 24-12-1983 under which one Chartered Accountant Dhirajlal M. Desai was appointed executor and trustee. At that time deceased's sister Sheeraz was alive. After the death of Sheeraz, the deceased executed another Will on 28-7-1988, Petitioners have come in possession of copy of that Will from Rajesh Dhirajlal Shah.
3. According to the petitioners the Will which has been probated is suspicious inas- much as it bears the thumb impression of the deceased whereas the deceased was a person who could read, write and sign. The witnesses to the Will Advocate Nazim H. Kazi and Dr. M. J. Moledina are residents of Mazgaon and Respondent is resident of Mazgaon whereas the deceased was never residing in Mazgaon. There is no specific reference to the two earlier Wills made by the deceased which stand revocated by the aforesaid Will. There is no provision made for certain relations of the deceased. The deceased was admitted to Ramkrishna Mission Hospital at Khar in Oct-November 1992 and thereafter a Nurse was employed in January-93 to attend to her at her residence and therefore, when the Will was made the deceased was not in a testamentary disposition of mind. She was never under treatment of Dr. Moledina and was residing at Khar and not at Mazgaon. The deceased used to consult petitioners and her Chartered Accountant for all her financial matters and therefore the Will produced by the Respondent is not a genuine document. It appears to be a forged and fabricated document and petitioners have taken thumb impression without making the deceased aware of the contents of the Will. Therefore, the Probate obtained should be revoked.
4. The petition is opposed on the ground that it is mala fide, frivolous and baseless. Petitioners have no interest in the estate of late Pratimadevi (deceased) or in her last Will and testament. P