Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 permits revocation of probate for just cause, with explanations provided being illustrative, allowing for broader judicial discretion.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. KARNIK, J.

1. Learned Single Judge of this Court (Manish Pitale, J.) invoked Rule 28(C) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to formulate following questions for decision by a larger bench.

“(I) Whether explanation (a) to (e) to Section 263 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, are exhaustive or illustrative, in the context of “just cause” for revoking or annulling grant of Probate or Letters of Administration?

(II) Whether circumstances not covered under explanations (a) to (e) to Section 263 of the SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, can become the basis for “just cause” for the Court to revoke or annul grant of Probate or Letters of Administration?

(III) Whether the judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of George Anthony Harris vs. Millicent Spencer [AIR 1933 Bom. 370] and Sharad Shankarrao Mane and etc. vs. Ashabai Shripati Mane [AIR 1997 Bom 275], lay down the correct position of law?”

2. The papers were accordingly placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for consideration. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice referred the questions formulated by learned Single Judge for consideration before this Division Bench.

3. The learned Single Judge was unable to agree with the position of law laid down by the learned Single Judges of this Court in George Anthony Harris v. Millicent Spencer, AIR 1933 Bom 370 and Sharad Shankarrao Mane and etc. v. Ashabai Shripati Mane, AIR 1997 Bom 275. It was observed that an important question regarding the very jurisdiction of this Court in the context of Section 263 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the “ SUCCESSION ACT ”) arises, which needs to be settled authoritatively by a larger bench of this Court.

4. We have carefully perused the detailed order passed by the learned Single Judge. Before we proceed to deal with the questions referred for our consideration, it would be appropriate to appreciate the background facts leading to the reference.

5. Testamentary Petition No. 109 of 2021 was filed by the respondent for the grant of Probate of a Will allegedly executed on 3^rd March 2022 by deceased Rajesh Chowdhary. Rajesh Chowdhary died in Ecuador on 25^th July 2020, having committed suicide. The cause of death as recorded in the death certificate is stated to be suffocation by means of hanging. On 9^th December 2020, the respondent filed the testamentary petition for the grant of probate. On 20^th May 2021, the petitioner filed a caveat and his affidavit in support of the caveat. The caveat was allotted lodging number 11828 of 2021. By an order dated 19^th December 2022, the delay in filing the caveat and affidavit in support was condoned. On 3^rd August 2023, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court granted the petitioner/caveator a last chance to remove office objections within 4 weeks in respect of the caveat, so that it could be numbered, failing which the caveat was to stand rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.

6. The Advocate for the petitioner/caveator failed to remove the office objections, as a consequence of which, by operation of the said order, the caveat stood dismissed. On 10^th November 2023, the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court noted that caveats of some of the caveators, including that of the petitioner, stood dismissed due to non-removal of office objections, and the only remaining caveat was withdrawn. On this basis, the petition was granted, and the office was directed to issue prob