Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M. S. Karnik and N. R. Borkar, JJ.
Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal
Choudhary – Petitioner
versus
Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka – Respondent
Misc. Petition (L) No. 6300 of 2024 in Testamentary Petition No. 109 of 2021
Decided on 16.10.2025
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Explanations (a) to (e) to Section 263 – Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration – Revocation of – Jurisdiction of Court to determine whether a ‘just cause’ exists in a given fact situation cannot be stifled by giving a restrictive meaning to ‘just cause’ in Section 263 – Purpose of Section 263 is to preserve integrity of probate proceedings and to ensure that grants are not obtained by fraud, concealment, or procedural unfairness – Merely because aggrieved person has not appeared or defended his case in proceeding for grant of probate, it cannot be a reason for refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 – Explanations (a) to (e) to Section 263 of Succession Act, 1925 are illustrative, in context of ‘just cause’ for revoking or annulling grant of Probate or Letters of Administration – Circumstances not covered under explanations (a) to (e) to Section 263 of Succession Act, 1925, can become basis for “just cause” for Court to revoke or annul grant of Probate or Letters of Administration. (Paras 30, 32, 34 and 38)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Explanation clause is internal aid of interpretation of statutes – Purpose of Explanation clause is merely to explain applicability of Section to which it is appended – Explanation clause neither expands nor restricts meaning of Section – An illustration to a statutory provision merely illustrates a principle, and what court should try and do is to deduce the principle which underlines illustrations – In case of ambiguity in interpreting a certain provision, Courts have followed principle of purposive construction, which is to give such interpretation of ambiguous provision as to uphold its true purpose – Purpose of a certain provision can be determined by ascertaining intent of Legislature behind use of words in a certain Section, as well as legislative history of provision – Statutory provision is source of power, while explanations merely indicate situations where that power may be exercised – In case of any conflict, main provision must prevail over its explanations/illustrations. (Paras 23, 24, 27 and 37)
Result: Reference answered.
JUDGMENT
M.S. Karnik, J.—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 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 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 3rd March 2022 by deceased Rajesh Chowdhary. Rajesh Chowdhary died in Ecuador on 25th 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 9th December 2020, the respondent filed the testamentary petition for the grant of probate. On 20th 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 19th December 2022, the delay in filing the caveat and affidavit in support was condoned. On 3rd 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 10th 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 probate.
7. On 1st January 2023, the petitioner filed Interim Application (L) No.34288 of 2023 for restoration of his caveat, but in the meanwhile, the office issued the grant. In this backdrop, the petitioner filed the present miscellaneous petition for revocation of the grant and thereupon, on 14th February 2024, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid application for restoration of his caveat.
8. Before the learned Single Judge, counsel for the petitioner submitted as under:-
Tha
(1) Revocation of Probate – Merely because aggrieved person has not appeared or defended his case in proceeding for grant of probate, it cannot be a reason for refusing to exercise jurisdiction under....
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.
The explanations under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are illustrative, allowing for revocation of probate based on just causes not explicitly listed.
The court ruled that failure to disclose necessary parties with caveatable interest justifies revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
The court affirmed that revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act is tenable despite the existence of an appeal, and that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC applies to such proce....
The High Court's jurisdiction to grant probate is limited to cases where properties are outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, and citation under Section 283(3) is unnecessary if....
The Testamentary Court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the validity of the Will, including its execution, attestation, and the testator's state of mind.
(1) Revocation of Probate – Limitations starts from date of grant of probate and not from date of knowledge about probate proceedings.(2) Probate Court is a court of conscience – Approach of a probat....
The grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked for 'just cause' as per Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
