Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Sampath, J.
V.Arunachalam, In re. .....In Re.
Versus
.
Application No.4560 of 2001 in O.P.No.625 of 2000.
Decided On : 05 April 2002
The judgment establishes the principle that a grant of Probate may be revoked for just cause, including fraudulent obtaining of the grant by concealing material facts and making false suggestions.
Headnote:
Revocation and Annulment of Probate - Fraudulent Will - Indian Succession Act, Sec. 263
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought revocation and annulment of the grant of Probate in favor of the respondent, alleging that the Will was fraudulently obtained and made up. They claimed to be the legal representatives of the deceased Vasudevan and provided documents to support their claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent obtained the Probate fraudulently by concealing the existence of Vasudevan's wife and children, and by suppressing the death of the beneficiary under the alleged Will. The court held that the respondent played a fraud on the Court and obtained the Probate, thus revoking the grant.
Issues: The main issue was the fraudulent obtaining of the Probate by the respondent, based on false suggestions and concealment of material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that just cause for revocation exists where the grant was obtained fraudulently by making false suggestions or by concealing something material to the case. The court also highlighted the importance of issuing citations to interested parties in Probate proceedings.
Final Decision: The application for revocation and annulment of the grant of Probate was allowed, and the court revoked the grant. No costs were awarded.
The first applicant is the mother of the other applicants residing at No.15, “F” Block, Pensioners’ Lane, Perambur Barracks, Chennai- 600 012. They are the legal representatives of deceased Vasudevan, who passed away on 10.11.1993. Even during the life time of Vasudevan, the applicants were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and after the death of Vasudevan, they had become the owners. Legal heirship certificate was also issued to the applicants by the Tahsildar on 29.12.1994 wherein it is clearly mentioned that Vasudevan left behind the applicants as his legal representatives. The applicants have the necessary documents like Birth Certificates, School Certificates, etc. to prove beyond doubt that the first applicant is the wife and the other applicants are the daughters of late Vasudevan and that they are the only legal representatives of Vasudevan. Vasudevan had not executed any Will and even if any such Will had been produced by the respondent in the application, it is a fabricated document made by him. He is in no way related to Vasudevan. The respondent and the lady by name Thilortha alias Santha Bai are trying to grab the properties belonging to the applicants. The respondent is a professional land grabber and in no way related either to the applicants or to Vasudevan or Thilortha alias Santha Bai.
In 1994 the respondent had filed a criminal complaint in C.C. No.2520 of 1994 against the applicants. The same was dismissed and in the same year, the respondent and Thilortha alias Santha Bai filed O.S. No.1135 of 1994, in which the applicants entered appearance and filed a written statement. The suit was also dismissed. The applicants had been persistently declaring before the Police Station, the X Metropolitan Magistrate ‘s Court and in the Second Assistant City Civil Court that they are legal representatives of late Vasudevan and that they have the necessary proof for the same. They have been further maintaining that the will set up by the respondent is a fraudulent one and a caveat also had been lodged long time back. The respondent, inspite of all the legal proceedings, without disclosing the applicant’s name and without informing the Court and without making them as parties in the O.P. for Probate, fraudulently by misrepresenting the facts and by hiding and not disclosing the earlier proceedings, has somehow or other managed to obtain the Probate of the Will. It is a blatant act of forgery and against the rules as laid down for obtaining Probate. Revocation and annulment are asked for a just cause. The respondent having obtained the grant fraudulently, is trying to assert his ownership and also attempting to dispossess the applicants by using unfair methods. He is also illegally trying to effect mutation and change of name and ownership with respect to the property in question in all public records. In these circumstances, the application has been taken out.
2. A counter has been filed by the respondent denying the various allegations in the affidavit in support of the application and has further stated as follows:
The property originally belonged to Vasudevan. He was very friendly with the respondent for more than 25 years. He lived as a bachelor and did not marry anybody. His sister Thilortha alias Santha Bai was deserted by her husband Kannayiram. She lived along with her mother and brother Vasudevan. After her mother’s death during 1970 Santha Bai lived with her bother Vasudevan. Vasudevan, after retirement from services, started a shop “News Mart” and for distributing the daily newspaper, he appointed one Pannerselvam as his office boy and only he performed t
