SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Mad) 5

Madras High Court
VEERASWAMI,NATARAJAN
In re N.Narasimhan - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Decided On : 01/06/1975

A caveator in a probate proceeding cannot raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased.

Headnote:

PROBATE - CAVEAT - SCOPE - INTEREST IN THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 283 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - CAVEATOR CANNOT CLAIM TITLE IN HIMSELF IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE TESTATOR OR TESTATRIX.

Fact of the Case:

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court referred a question to a single Judge regarding whether a caveator in a petition for probate can properly claim title in himself in conflict with that of the testator or testatrix.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a caveator in a probate proceeding cannot raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased. The interest in the estate of the deceased mentioned in Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act is only that interest which a person called upon by citation may claim to have in the estate of the deceased, and not the interest which the deceased did not own but which the claimant coming into the picture by citation claims to be vested in himself.

Issues: Whether a caveator in a petition for probate can properly claim title in himself in conflict with that of the testator or testatrix.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act and held that the interest in the estate of the deceased mentioned in the section is only that interest which a person called upon by citation may claim to have in the estate of the deceased, and not the interest which the deceased did not own but which the claimant coming into the picture by citation claims to be vested in himself. The court also held that the title of the testator or testatrix to the whole or any part of the property which is the subject-matter of disposition is entirely and necessarily outside the scope of probate proceedings and that question will have to be settled by a regular trial.

Final Decision: The court answered the reference accordingly and remitted the matter of probate for a decision by the learned Judge, sitting on the probate side.

Judgement

VEERASWAMI, C. J. :- Mohan J., having found a conflict between Komalangiammal v. Sowbagiammal, 59 Mad LJ 529 : (AIR 1931 Mad 37) decided by a Division Bench and Jayakumar v. Ramarathnam,(1972) 1 Mad LJ 4 : (AIR 1972 Mad 212), of a single Judge, has referred the particular question, whether in a petition for probate a caveator can properly claim title in himself in conflict with that of the testator or testatrix.

2. The scope of a probate petition is confined to an enquiry as to the disposing state of the mind of the testator or testatrix and the disposition of his or her property by will. Any caveat entered into will also be confined to the scope of the petition. A person who claims interest in the estate of the testatrix will have the locus standi to maintain the caveat, the scope of caveat enquiry being no more than what it is in that of the probate proceedings themselves. This proposition, which is elementary, is long since established, both on principle and by practice, of this Court on the probate side. Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, which concerns itself with the powers of the probate Court provides that it may issue citations calling upon all 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". The next section dealing with caveat provides that a caveat shall be made as nearly as circumstances admit in the form set forth in Schedule V. That Schedule is merely that 'Let nothing be done in the matter of the estate of A. B., late of ....deceased, who died on the ....day of .... at .... without notice to C. D. of. Reading these two provisions, it is explicit that citation is permissible in respect of a person claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased, the object of the notice being to let him have an opportunity to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. Once caveat is entered, no further steps should be taken without notice to the caveator. Our attention has been invited to Sections 220, 222, 232, and certain other provisions dealing with probate and letters of administration. But we do not think that except that they contain general provisions, they have any direct decisive application in deciding the question before us. The answer to the question will depend upon the interpretation to be placed on the words 'any interest in the estate of the deceased' in clause (c) and Section 283 (1). From Sowbagiammal v. Komalangiammal, 54 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1928 Mad 803) which was decided by Venkatasubba Rao J., and which was affirmed by Komalangiammal v. Sowbagiammal 59 Mad LJ 529 : (AIR 1931 Mad 37), the law has always been that in a probate proceeding a caveator will not be entitled to raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased. The interest in the estate of the deceased mentioned in Section 283 is but that interest which by citation a person called upon may claim to have in the estate of the deceased and not the interest which the deceased did not own, but the claimant coming into the picture by citation claims to be vested in himself. In other words, title of the testator or testatrix to the whole or any part of the property which is the subject-matter of disposition is entirely and necessarily outside the scope of probate proceedings and that question will have to be settled by a regular trial. That was what was pointed out to be the principle and practice of this Court by Venkatasubba Rao J. in 54 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1928 Mad 803). That was a fully considered judgment in which all the relative decided cases including Hanumantha Rao v. Latchamma 51 Mad LJ 563 : (AIR 1926 Mad 1193) were noticed and the learned Judge summed up the test for purposes of S. 283 (1) (c), as being that a person disputing the right of a testator to deal with property as his own, cannot be properly regarded as having an interest in the





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top