.. H _-- ' '(By SifTTi.PadmBnabha Mahale,
vTS'Br'iP.T..P.Rajendra Kumar Sunga-y, Advocate)
IN THE HfGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANOA:;O"RP}:
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OI?.QCTO}313'}?"9§'£}{1V9x"
BBPORE; A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEQBNAND BY*R2XRE§_5D'Y
PROBATE CIVIL PETIfEi”O:N;;NO:8. OPT 999
PROBATE CIVIL-.PETI1FIO§{_.N–O;’lOOF I999
AND PROBATE CIVIL:PB’TT1″_!ONTN&;gflOP 1990
PROBATE C1v;1;9PE3iffmOiggis
Mrs.E1_izabeth COBB-O’I1.3<O»(Nee"Faithful)
Wife Of Phei'im C<)_ni1_.O'}1yV,' " — " *
Aged about 3/.ears.._ ' _ "
Residing at__L2i Ville Jam-5649(),
Guiv_!iier.s:,__A£7?r2V;nce, _____
” B VRepf’esef1ted_b*3§_her Power Of Attorney
Holdex husband Phelim Cennolly,
La ‘\LZ.i11e”;¥zi112,,_56″{i’9’O,
Guilliers, Frafice.
Senior
I
” ” Mrs:.Che-ryl Margurite Soggee,
Wife Of Robert Chales Sogge,
Represented by her G.P.A.I~iOlder
Z
PETI TION ER
Counsei and
:f!;5u§é»’ :~=Hs«9swfi.
7:39. B; 黥£wiyf£- BB1
ix)
Major P.T.La2.21rus (Retinzd)
306, Cross, 7″‘ Main,
IV Block, _K0ramanga1a,
Bangaia0re–56O O34.
Rev.M0ther Provincial, _
Little Sisters of the P()()i”,, “‘~V..V_
15, Hosur Road, %
Bangaiore–560 025,
Rex/.M0ther Superiof,’ ‘
Missionarigis of Cha-;7ivty;w V
3, Ash()kaR_()ad, I
Banga1d:e–§6{)._._(JG.’5′.« _
Mc)therv~.Su’pfe.:fii_0;’,
s:;%M1%cmi1e’s C[:o%;;vem,%
Old Ma.dr:is~R-rj:;1d, » %
J ecvzm B hi:1ja’12.§iga;*;’ -. ” *
Ban§a..14c51’c,–56() 075.
“3′.:Piff3xSi(i§3Ht, ….. 14 v
V Chfist1fi’~Scva Samaj,
” k .(Ana11ti1a’;_/ashram.)
R’efiig¢ fdfrvvfiestiiutes,
V “%Opp(jSifc’JSt..Xavie1”:5 Boys’ HighSch001.,
Shvivyrajfiagar,
Bz1Vr}gal()re–56O ()0! .
V .:P1fesbyter»~in–c:harge,
St.MarI<'s Cathedral,
N0. .1, St.Mark's Road,
_B2m galore.
Bangalore CheSh1′.re Home,
9:»
Bangalore — 560 005
Mother Superior,
St.MichaIe’s Convem,
Ofd Madras Road,
Jeevan Bhimanagar,
B2mga1ore–56O 075
President,
Christu Seva Sa1n2ij;».A_
(Anantha A.s;h1~am)”* ‘
Refuge for Destitutesj .
shiva;inaga::;e e . .
B21ng;1f():*er_56.€}–‘:QOJ ._ .
Opposite SeX;1vie§:*’VéV’B'<)jQs'. H~igh_ Seheel,
. Presb i'n–e1:1a'reg_e'§ ' I
S't_5Maa'k Cé1:'thed1fa'l;–e.__: = ' '
N0'.«f_. St.Ma..r_k"s'i30ad_,
Ba11g:Va!_;)1'eee .
_” ‘ ‘galore’ Home,
._ 6″”Mile’;,HAL Airport Road.
– ” = ga11:;.:¢~5§<) 017
' A V The_ Pfefgidnent,
Bangahire Childem' S Society.
63,,v__R.ich1nond Road,
” _Bar1ga101’e ~ 560 025
MResp0ndent.N0.7 defeted vide order
Dated 2I.1().2()O3 on memo.
. Director,
Kjdwai Memorial I.nsti.tute 0fOne0l0gy,
S
I4.
who had died intestate. This circumstance according to Shri
Mahle is a just cause for revocation of the grant of probate in
terms of section 263 of the Act as the proceedings to the
grant were defective in substance. It is further corrt§’end’ekii’—that~_the
grant of probate having been made on »_l6.6..1989–.:}% the bequests’
under the will was a void bequest u:n.det:’_”se{:tio’n_ _l*;h8 ol’::tiiel’l’Act.
And not withstanding the subsequent repea.I the
grant of probate in respect of al–voi.d–.wl~l.lA wotiildvrender the same
valid vfliichIxinnotnliibe couhtenzzncetl and therefore the grant of
l.3robate be V1’e~vo1<e:-(ll A' 1 i '"~ ..
ft}rtl1er”t:«onte.:v1ded that the will is suspicious and 21 got
up tiec_ur,r1lerit’.this is apparent from the fact that at one place in
the .will a_ made in favour of a servant states that it would
lfitaiie effect after the death of herself and her husband, when her
“hursba”nd was already dead and therefore renders it a suspicious
.. .,(;1.(§ctiment.
Reliance is sought to be placed on the following authorities:
8
re’
vague aliegation is made of the will being suspicious and a got–up
document at the time of finai hearing, no such ground israised or
substantiated in the petitions. The primary ground for’ reli/ocgttion
of the grant of probate is to estabiish that the wit} geniuine
and valid — in the absence of such a chztilenge, ithe’re’is no’bas§,s for
the petition. Further, the beques;-t__.beiiig.hit by of the w
Act cannot be the ground for revoc’at,iioeuof the wiiii. The scope of
P_robate proceedings is “resti’Aicted{_p’to*theAA”consideration of the
genuineneiss “of.the vfiii, itisaifaiid executioii and the competence of
the egxeciutorto be pmbzite. The question of titie to the
propesrty or eiicti it’s’i’veri;-_t existence are not the subject matter of
itenqiij’i.ry.i*iiSo” aiso the competence or otherwise of a testator to
‘t3e§q:1.esti.i’would re main outside the scope of the proceedings
and nota ‘vg1″()ui1d for revocation of probate.
2 ” 4_ 8. “I.nsofa1′ non–citation of the petitioner who is said to be
* iiiece of the testatrix -w reliance is piaced on a decision of the
i Supreme Court in Am] Beizari G/ms/1 vs’. I.nrika Bola Dcz5si_. AIR
17
1955 SC 566, wherein it is held that the omission to issue citation
to persons who should have been apprised of the probate
proceedings may well be in a normal case a ground by.p’i’Ls,e1f for
revocation of the grant. But this is not an .abs’o1;_iteljgright
irrespective of other considerations arising froI31,tlr~e. proved facts
of a case. The court may refuse to grant aniiuihioentppiin. where
there is no likelihood of pro.o’f-._being”offered
admitted to probate was either notigevnuine or’ha.dl not been validly
executed.’ lit _ii’s..:praye.dV”that the petitions in Prob.CP
8/1999 and l13′–rob.'(Z_Pill.ijVO»/lit’ 999 be dismissed.
199.0, there is no representation by Counsel.
‘Hie’ petitio’ner. iemiming in the capacity of the presbyterwin-charge
o.fV.Slt;lPau.l.s”ifathedrzil claims as a residuary legatee and alleges
gsuspicioniof the Executrix’s motives and seeks her removal.
In the above circumstances, the questions to be
polnsidered is whether the petitioner in Prob.CP 8/1999 and
Z
18
Prob.CP i0/1999 has made out a case for revocation of probate
and rernovai of the E€x.eeut1’ix on the grounds urged.
Firstly, it is to be noted that there is no
either of the petitions questioning the»~genuineness’oi’ L. i
the Valid execution of the same. its then requires to “‘.;3:'”e._.vsee_r1
whether any of the cireumstances.._:i’eferretl to of the
Act are present. We may ~’..1_sefulAl’)ii/ite’:i.tr’ne’te’s_eetioniZ63′(b) for ready
reference.
-.;:1;rmttl’ine11t for just cause.– The grant
. *Ql’gP1′(iha!§i o1′..l.etter.s administration Ina)’ be revoked or
. ai1’null’e§l& i’oriiusit’e2tuse.
W lust cause shall be deemed to exist where —
V (a). .thei–.V.prc)eeedings to obtain the grant were defective in
7..substance: or
V A 4′ (ii) the grant was obtained frauduiently by making a false
suggestion. or by concealing from the Court
something material to the ease; or
(C) the grant was obtainecl by means of an untrue
allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify
Z
the grant, though such allegation was made1 1’n
19
ignorance or inadvertently: or
(ii)
the grant has becomes useless and inoperative th.rtiu§jhi
CiI’CUfI1Sl£1I1CCS; O1″
(6)
and without reasonabie c.ause1_orn.i_ttec1 toj3xih;ib’it an’
the person to whom the grant was jnrade wil1f’ttIiv f
inventory or accotint’–_V_i”iwn_ acc’or'(:1ancewti’ie
provisions of chapter V1’i’___ot’-.thi:–;.._Part, or has exhibited
under that Cha’pter. an .’inve,t1tery’r.or«.account which is
untrue in a material -respecti;
(i) V
Il!ta.s:1;~(trtz,{n;si ‘
Tiie (:’?_(:V)i_I'{“i by’ which grantwwas made had no
._ -jui9is«’£1je.t:i’on. ‘
my
‘jt1t.;%’t;_,
(Vi )
V “The grant’ ‘–wa’s.___i.|i:«a’dc without citing parties who
L”otlgitt.to’V–.have Been cited.
The “\2vi1]_(_)f¢ which probate was obtained was forged
_oi».,tfevo keel.
AfoE).tained ietters of adrninistration to the estate of
. his widow, but it has since transpired that she
was never married to him.
A has taken admi.nistration to the estate of B as if
he had died intestate, but a wii! has since been
discovered.
Since probate was granted, a later wiii has been
é
discovered.
El}
(vii) Since probate was. granted, at eodieil has been
discovered which revokes or adds to the
appointment of executors under the will. .
(viii) The person to whom. probate was, 01′
adminisEmti()n were, granted has
become of unsound mind.”v b
10. From a reading of Explzination g;1;iuvse~ (a)”~.p2i’r1d
illustration (ii), it may be tl’1l€E’tr[ll»!€ expmslstioii “defective in
Substance” would incltide'”omis’éioVn:toissue citations to persons
who shoulld ‘harfgte :éi’pp.”risedl’_lofi”the probate proceedings, but
as held the S¥.l§l;€!.fl6-_”CQll1*l’ll? Am”! Behari Glm.sl1′.s’ case supra,
the court r.et’use”t().”-grétnt annulment in cases where there is
V””lilketliitholod of prL5{5r9 being offered that the will admitted to
A ‘–p1’t>.b21te~Wfe:s”eitlier not genuine or had not been validly executed.
I_n_;’s’o£’3r”l the challenge. to the grant of probate on the
l ._xgAr(>und of the bequest being 21 void bequest under section 118 of
thedfkct is concerned, the said section stands repealed. The
V’ “”c”onte.tition that the Section ought to be held to apply in View of the
G
order of grant of probate was Inside when the section was on the
statute book by applying the doctrine of prospective ov~e_r’r1_ili~ng w
is a proposition put forth by the Senior Advocate wiiich:
to comprehend. In the opinion of.tAhis_cou_irt,ivithei,’doictrine”._of i
prospective overruling has no 21ppli’c.;1tionl’ in c’ircumstan:c’c.si”as
above and such an argument is Section _”§;l8′;isMno longer
relevant.
Insofar the clainJ”(‘)’f”th:e pet.i.i’ior_1_er one–half share of the
pi’opertres left i”oehind.Vby.4VM.r:Fait*l”1t’ul is concerned w the title of
Mr. or Mrs. ._Faithful’:and«_tihe,_e:s11pwi’ng ‘decisio-ns.
IS??tt?C£Fde() A-;?x.*mi;»;r szngrz vs. Karma I)evi, AIR 1954 SC 280
wherein is-held that W
“.’Nz_.-/2′ C our: of Prolacme is r.)rIt’y cc)nccr:1ed with the
V’ _ .'”‘.C]H€SI’l'{)H (Its to vvlzcfizlzer the c!0r.”zm2c3rzI’ put forward as
3
73′?
.41..
the l.c’1.s’I wih’ and tr<s"I(z1'¢2e1':t of a cfe('ea._s'ed p.r3r.s'()rz wc1.s',.___
c1m'_y za.x'ec'z.ztec! arm! (lII£.'SIed in (zccor'clam"e wit/7
urza.' wfzeflmr (11 the time Qf'.m(.'h (execution rile Ief§'?L:'ti/,é{"~ » u
had .s'0Lmd cl1'.s'p05z'rzg mind. The que.s'z1'0n M,'l2'és']:fic%I'::cI'.
pc:F;'f('Li{('H' i)eqzw..s'I is good or Ind' 375;. nor'! L»v1';vi?iifzV:. v A
pm'1.-dewQfthe Pr()/Date Courr. "
Mrs. Hem N0iim’ Jada/’I vs. Ii/i’Jf,s*.”!,5f()l}=r1é’ Sqmjbas/iiifii'”B:);§e’, AIR’?
1962 SC 147]
It was held that _q_L1:e.:;.tVi(;.irV,;_.Vs :b0f'”‘~tif1eV..’jvafe not decided in
pr0ceed.ing.s’ f(iVrV’utE’ie.. gr21»r’1’1*.cVT0’i’ «.p’1’0’ba,te or letters of administration
whatever f’E1eref()re.1n.igh€__”.§121ve happened in those proceedings
A_ w<3§;:'15i;1 rid: evstztbiiish..Eh_c«Lit1e. Where on an application for letters
V' of éidminiS'tr§Itip'i1 .'""'
ii 0_ffiI.!'e are not' dec'ic!e(1 in ,r)r0ceedi:1g¢' fbr
gfzviiy gfdrwi of probczfra or [slicers of ac1m.imf_s'Iration.
Wi2dtev(ar' there: 'are Jnziglar hcwe h.a;)pened in fhcfie
:5pr0c'eeding.s* would not esrablrlwz. the Iizle. Where an an
c.1pp!r'crcmTon for letters of cu!mimIs*trczIi0n c:-errain
[)i'L'.[l|ITtI'I1(If'_',-' 1Zs's'L1e.s' were__f'rc1mec1 one of wr"ziz:i1 relafed I0
€.s't()ppe[ wt'!/'1 !"€.S'[)(*.'(.'f to {face r)pp0.s'iIe ,rJc'zr'I__v'.5' righr to (1
pmp(.*r't_\-' and the applic.'c.zti()rz was' 0bvic)z.:..s'!}-' c1'i.s*rn1Zs'.s'e(1
5
2.3
under 0. .27 R2 Civt’l RC. _)’m’ the t’€u.S'()tI that the
ctpplic,-a:«zt did not appear no qtte_s’tt’0rz of re.s’judt’cc1tc1 ax
to the title to that pr0pert}-‘- can (ti”l_S’e agczimt the
ttppliectttt by reczsrm 0_/’that: (ll.S’t7’ll.S’.S'(tl. ”
Chiranji1alShrtlctl Goenkct vs. Jczsjit Singh, (1993 _It
was held following the dictum in Ishwardeo Zsf céiset,
“l5. In Ishwctrdeo Narain. Sittgh vs’. >-._Shlzt. K;ztt:t’ctDe-‘xi H
this Court held that the Court lOf:;?t”()l?ClI€ ‘lS’Albiflly l’
ermeemed with the qtte.s’fit5’tz.V a..s’ ‘Vic; whether'”._the
§l()’t’ttt’1;ehtiiptttlflea?’;»uct’t”:la2t’s’ tlte.lct’;s’tVlwill and testament of
ct._Acle(~>ec2.S’.elclu;:ie’tt5€t)tt lvlVt?’ct,:§’.”a’1tlty’ executed and attested in
c1c?e(tt{tlcmc’e ‘ve,>ttlt.’..lu1t1t: Jlwhether at the time of such
A. ~e.Xec’tttt’lt}rI.,tlt.etveXI(tf()tt..ll’t(tcl sotmd dz’sp0sing mind. The
“.:”:.qE;>”%’€V:45vl’:'()’FEl wl1etl1e~:*-uh pa.rt1’eu[ar bequext is” good or bad
z’.e’._v t’2.()l”.._”W.i’l_\l”‘ll’}? the [)Lit’vl€W of the probate cozm’.
only i.¥.sue in a probate proceedings
}”({l(tf(‘_.$::3″(tVflI.€ getmirzenesxv cmcl clue execfutt'(‘m of the will
cshrzf. the e0m’t itself is tender duty to cfetermtne it and
. prexerve the ()rt’girtczl will in its c.’z»t5t()dy. The
SL£CCe.S’Sl()f1′ Act is a .s’elf~c.-ontctined (rode ITrt.s’0_f’at’ as the
que.s’ti0n 0/’1’nal<t'ng an application. for pmbctte, grant
or refimtl ofprohate or an appeal ec1.rried ctgainst the
dec.-tIs'i0t1 hf the [))'()l9(jI§' ("()LtFf. Tim' is' clearly
mczm.'f'e.s'tecl in .thefa..s'cric't+le Q/'I'I'1e pm\='i.s'-i0n.s' (2f.ff:IK" . A4
The probate prr)c'eec11'r'zg.s' .s'hcu'l be c*()r-1.d1.u:{;2ti'-._h}"iffzen
pmbczte c'm.:rI' in the manner pr(fs("i'if:-ecl iii ti1e4uAh(';?'4c1r:iZ£v
in no olher way. The gram of ;;)'r;)l);;§fic»A.
The will (mnexed esIczb!i.a'he'.*_._$ (.'r:rVz."(,=!:;1.'s":'WI)' 'VVi:.'r:4_V1*:i'ze
appoinrmenr offhe exe('L-zI()f"cmk:' the. vc1}~.'i(Z' éxe
crutimi (.)f
the will . Tims if (i()e.s' '1.<;()" r}?(_:)'.+'.e V"1".'.!'.1_£II1 e_s'rdhA4'i.sur'2V the
faen.m2 of the will' ('Ind the;-.Vl.eg1'€ e,€€.s'tei!'zc.§'e ()fi'h_é p}*.e.15l}= itseffi ‘”
Ghulczm 132.;,_SpeeiafhvTr*’ih;;nczlx200.I AIR SC W 4022 :
whe_rei.n it was held . ‘
”Th.e.rjeh ;:c:rzh<2t he "c.z1zjé"cli_s*;)L¢ze to the Iegai pr0p0.s'iti0n
'V I:"~E£'ZI the r'gg;}'ii Q]',brr)I'9c; vziews’ crncl ‘f’Qll0wi}1g ‘:f[1eV.__e’a–zf;’_ig:9 ‘ _ A’
cfe(,’isi()rz.s’ Of I 111115′ C am”! (15 well mi. 6/jffihrher’ .5515′ C0un’s –~ ‘
in India m.’9.s’ervecl in }2c£rV’¢z_gi;fu>t/16:” Ihe documerzr pm’
‘v..’Vf&):’Li’.J;1.=”(!’t1§”z’]z.k> ._r»’c1u;s’-.’._ W-2’1} (Md Iesfczrrzeni of £1 dec’ea.s’ed
pe._rf.s’rm, wits’ (i’uI}» ,.e.Tfagrz!re’d and c2Ite.s’Ied in (l€.’€'()l’d(Ii’lC(‘
win’: Yaw cmci’ wfieilxér’ at the time (3f’.s’uch execuIi()n the
3_._;e_s’:c1r()r licicf~~~~~;s'()uncl di_s’pm’ing mind. The q’ues*ti0n
w.fi1c'<'4.*./_1'€;'__c'z par'Iic'ular bequesi is good or bad is not
"'s:132'£'.f:i1r.fi2€5,(7Lzr'1,*zTc'w Q';"':lz.e probate Comm Ti'2eref0re, the
.1)1'Tl_'_}":.~' fA.YSL£-E? in CI ;)r0f7a1€ pmceecling_s' relcn'e.s' In the
'~ gr3nL4inme.s:v and clue ce..»cecrurinn. of {he will and flu)
H':i()urI' i1'..S'c%[fi.S' zmdcer (Jury I0 d'e?rem1:Trze it and preserve'
Ihe r)r1Tgir-16:! will in {Is c.'ar..s'I()ciy. The -SLI:(.'('(£S'XI'()fl Act' is a
.s'e[f"cnnlcrined mclc) ir1.s'c3fu,r' as' the que.s'ri(m ofmaking
cm Clp])2'f(,fClII'()flf()I" probclre, gram or :'c{fim'c1l Qf"pr()ba2'e
or am up,r)(?(1{ carrier] :@1I'12.s"I the (feci,s*i(m of Ike
30
(*irc.’::nn.s’I’anc’r2s’ of 11% prmer-II mw. A pfctiiz I’-.’£*E.iPI57I’l’;i,’~.(_’)f , A’
Ilu’.s clccriximw waulc! not .5’l70u-‘ I/mi cgfrer I}1:¥7.__gr¢’1m. r)f
probare lay a mmp€Ic)nt C(‘>zzi<:,""r'h<+ .\'uiTr 'f'()r' Ii–?:[c) and,
[)ermur'1er1t in_jLm(.rt1'0n c'aru&<)t .s*uia."~ 'lo
rrzairzfczirm,/Jlc' in law. VW'.v':'-qt 1/'zi;§._C(:a:r-'I :ri1c'z:'f
ciecisimz is that am'? c'i"*,é.i'c*f9c4Ie Cl
competent Comftg wrwézsitil' c.'()nf:Zi4'.s'–:Tve.vv the
vaIz'dz'fj»-= of the WM hm; {fcir:.n_r)t be cfecisive
wherher' the p.*'()i2C!v£€ C()L£f'%. y1§.()zflt? 'c1I{s':}<§i,'V(!Ec'idc the rifle
ofihe ii?::{h(3i.§'t;ii;I [?.f'(),'I:).}£?".aT'r-('..$.,,'r@hiC';1, in our view,
couii ("i.:}'i!.V.Cr)a:r'f cm evia'enCe. It
l1i9i1a'f_'.'tl%2'i!;:A_ [hen:#)f'(;I??(liI£:'–.(?f:I';?(4 Wilf gmmecl 1)); the
('c_r;*.v:;:;.éVI'«;–:".*.:.V1'-«v.._1)';V'r)})::Azg§%"'».C0:.tft would be aa'm:.'tr'ed info
'1':V}fiEfra rzc'e't7f.tijs;?-jize. taken. z'm'0 cr()11_s'iden.ztir.)i': by the
c.'i1;i":'~V Cvom-ftV "j–..-as/1ir"£.(3 iYc'i't7(1i7Ig {he _s'uiI_f0r rifle bur gram of
V __fpr(gi)(:l'e9hi*L.;rI1;_QI.be cle('i.\'ivc for darlcmzltirm offitle and
b' 'A.f'.f1".,."~"A4v}'i.'L'..'r:':!'():'l whether at all rhea restazor had any title to
A :'ihc5 ',«';)'r'()])8.I"I':"é'.A' or not".
'VVKri.§l'1.'}'icI.z Kg4.ri'ic;r' Birla. vs. Rczjcenclm Singh Lndha, (2(}08)4 SCC
j3rj()i '- .
It béen held as foliowsz
“5 7. The 1925 Ac! in zhi.s’ c(1.\’-(3 ltczs nothing to do with
the law ofirzh.€ri1’a.:zce or sLe(‘c.’ex.\”t’0iz w/ufch is r.)I11er’wi.s’e
g()1~*ei”necf by stclrutory laws or the (:’u.s’Ir.)m, as {he cia.s’e
3
32
Ihe ._s’ai(1.’ q:.wsIi’o:z in rc%.s’p(J(:I Q/'(my Qfthe item.s said to
brelong to NW .s’az’a’ (».s’IoI’e.
Mrsjocm Poi vs’.Mrs.Esrne D”Soz.:2:a, 1984(1) Kar.LJ 213
wherein. it has been held that:
“3. Gram of probate (2/” CI i/Vii?” iii’ no Qmi_(‘)re_.Vi.
a.crc’epfcm(?e of Ilia? due cxecutirm of ‘tl1c?1’_i_iw~é;il [ii'()b’ciz_:éd Vi
and that order grcmring prr)£;'(in:%__.c1()e.yi iicireciztra a :2
fczvcmr oft/2e ])€I’S()I’t wh.(> has (‘)F)I.«VC:.IV’I.I2(3C[ it (ind if’£e’–iiLs’ riot
recjmrecl I0 prove tha’i~..Will m’zz~e ,r,igcziiz_i’r1 czr2J\i*”of}’iei~
pt’r’:(.’iéié£!fr:.gf:if,Gi”iii€i:”‘ ‘c3f’x’,(2ij:()r”3c1.1ei ii1f’rji;:1.s’V:i1r)i (.’mifer nil:-;» on
I/26/’iiiT€I€ffII63f”i’i'<'.f*I7fI't'»,iwfifhlia'-if! 're,s'pec*! of an); of the
[)F'()])(;f'FITe{S"'ii'lC'II1(ZéE?iT£-i'I iiiifi-enSeiiecliile ()_f(i.s1s"er_s' requirecl
to fz'ler! 5,ilA(_mwiTii'1 ,siii('i1 probate perition. It has to
2,;-:igi'z. proper Civil Court Iicwing
;~,J’,££f”iT§fCVI’l”(‘li.i(.)I’T.”(Hid rfze quexiion settled I//zere. ”
Sexicér:;’i’ié) I) vs. F elf»: Ambroxe I),S()I/£261, [LR 2003 Karl 94
zz Full Bench of this court while considering the
i’ e.eoi1’i1-ieting opmions expressed by 3 Division Bench of this court
i ” with the judgment of the Supreme Court in IShwara’e(_) Narain.
Singli. v. Karma [Jew and has held as follows:
Z
Lu
DJ
“The lnclitm Su(k(.’e.s’_s’i0n Act, .1925 inter (zlia cleals with
the gm:-It 0fpt”()h(tte.s’ cu-Id xtzec’e.s’.s’t’oi’z eet’ttf’ie(zte5. Se(itt’0h.-~-
2.13 of the Act provirles that no right as’ exe.ettt0t’_.
legatee can be e.s’tctl>li.§’l1ea’ in any e0m’t 0fJtt.s’tt’ee,__ lihle–t.’.$f’ — V
(1 C()L£i”I Q/’ ctrtmpetent jttt’t’.s’cl1’c’tt’r)t’1 in It-zclia hgz._s_’ Qtjtlflltfd
probate of the will tmcler which the’ }Eigt2«r. i.s”.L’lat’.me(l,l._()t”
hc1.s* granted probate of the will Lttzclet” V’tlilt’:h the figgltt ‘ls
claimed, or has granted lette.:i§’ -Q)”ctcln/tlt’r1Vt’.s’trr1ti0;:tVwifltvtlze
will. Section 227 of the A(.’Il’l(;l[flils~ with” of
probate and pmw’cle.sj tt’:.gzt ;9t'(),l)'(t’teoj”tt Ml! wheh”grczt1ted
€SI(ll?llSl1€.S’ the will =f’rt)’t:’1 Ttl1e’–t§le;ttt~h l(3fil:ltl<tel =testat0r and
I('tI(l€t',S' mlicl all lt'lI€Kt.t'tc*£ll(tt'~(? l£'Ef.A'f;'J oflltvhcalexeetttor. The
:z.et-V'-._e__1'fe._('.*' of t'.'*':,<—«v…,§jiia'rl l[}.F:'(lAL'4"."~sjlt')I1-l is that once (I probate is
grante;':;l, 4' the ' §:a.t7ne' '-e$5t;2!.h'l'i_s'heX the will re.tm.s'peetively
from tlzeflate z)k}V"l'V–tl1e'–._(ieuth of the te.stat0r and ""()lS'IlST the
;§'tf(),_tV)e'tt'_y in the"eXe_ettt»t)r thereofil The grant of the probate
pt<r)vlz't:le3.<tl'teV evidence regarding the will from. which the
em.,-.;A:;'«.iple.s’ are .3-,~n””we«.’41’kn–mw_x, _1}tl’:3 _dc)
J
not Illink we .s’/10w’d cite cmIh.0rz’Iie.s’ f.’r.)r I}:”? eIr::’T’ . 1
To the same c{[]”é(:t is the (1.’c)i.;;?.sff'(“)’;*:V_ in “R {]_K1.’%/[ATNI
vs NARENDRA LAL GUPTA” ».t.!;m~e–z-Ire Suweme Cciéur-I
held rhat_failure ofcm if1’f~ere.s’;’éc! _pef*.»*QI2 fb–.enter caveat to
cvrrrexi the ;)r”()(?ee(1i21gx wr)i£1’d pI_Tec>’V[*z4AAc_’..*’u:’ ‘them firom
.r.'()nIc’.s’r:’rzg Ifjtnk’ »_\_rc’z!:’d;itA___\-‘ .*.:’;1civ. ‘-w,z_’:.U.’ ~ii~;. ‘ev€r_1..= other
;)r”(}.;’c1ecfi1a;g,vL V. _V ‘V ‘ <
In "1$H"wi4Rp.»5:'o N.AR;:; IN SINGH m KAMTA DEVI"
'flzeivr Lc.2r(lhs'/1i,'j§$".m_I1'z_m:czrived fire .s'c.'()pe of the /)r()c'reedirzg..s'
' 2 , bcefme.i!:v4c§'I?mlJaIe Court in tmfollawirzg w0r'd.s'.'
. *–'.!':"zeVC1')':i–.tfrfgfprr)/attic ix Uni)' c'*(mc"c)rned with rhe quexténn
'a.s' t':_2 wf:a5thcer' the docwnenr put forward' as Ike lasl Will
(slid.V_(é.s':(m'1€r1t (gf a dec:'ea,s*ec! ;;mr.s'(m was cful}? exec'uted
"£11161! artmred in c1c.'c'm'a'c;m"e with I.'c.n-1: cmd w/wther at I116
tirme' (gf'.s*u.:'h e_xecu2'i()n the tc».s*IaIm' had sozmci (1i.s'p0.s'ing
rnind. The qum'zic)n w/Let/rm' particular' bequmi is' good
or [acid is not within the ;9zg)'1=zTcJz»@'I/16 pr'ol7u!€ Court "
36
To the some e_fj’e.r;”.*t is the decrist’orz of the Supreme Court in
“Mrs.HEM NOLINI JUD/~1H(SINGH DECEASED} AND
AFTER HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
MR5′. MARLEAN WILKINSON vs MRs. [SOL AXE
SAROJBASHINI BOSE AND OTHERS The
declared that the questiott oftitle to the prr);Jert_jfi”c1’re[hot »
decided in proceedt’rtgs for the grant of pro.E;atej_E’c:mId
letters ofctdmz’m’stration. The grrtrit’ oft? probczte or-I tfetter.s{‘,
of (tdI?’1.fI’IfS!I”aI!'()f1 cieefctrecl the :C()Lii?fI”éII(I rtt)t”~es”t.”tI5Iis’Itp if
that the person making the-‘mill t{»(ts”the ()wtt'({r of the
property which he may htt1»e’«gILren awttj’;’._I_9_:Vrthe will and
that cthy person inte.~rested 131′ ‘pr-opert_”y .t’m?lttc1e’o.””z’An the will
tjfm oI.wcz};=.s5’ft’–!e ‘ct o.s’m’t_ to .e_.s;r:hlt1s*h his right to the property
tothe”exctt-tsiorte’ofthotestcttor in spite of the grant of
probate. or lettersof}:-éltttirtistrcttion. The proceedings for
probate r)r”I«.e.tter.s”.(2’f’ aclnzinis-trcztion are not eorteernec!
wIitI¢t. t_h.ev,t_itt’e to the property but are only eortcemed with
I t’dtte«..exc2eL~:.ttt;n of the will. The followirtg passage is in this
I regczhrcireIevcm.t:
“I\f’o;-v it is not in o’z’sput’e that the grant of probate or
letters of admim’strott'(_m does not establish that the
person making the will was the owner of the property
wltieh he rrtczy hctve §iVé’fI awcty b_\.= the wiff, aha’ arty
person it-zter’ested in the property :’rt(.’l:tded in the will can
CtIW(1jp’.S”f.l.I£’ ct suit to esto.bIi.s’h his t’igh.t to the property to
£5′
37 —
the e..\’c’ius’i(m of the te.s’tator in Spite of the grant of
probate or letters ofodmini.s’tr(zti’on to the [egotee or the
executor, the reason being that {)r()c’ceedirt;»:.s’ for probate
or letters of cidmim’.s’trcztion are not concerned with the
title to the propertv but are onlv concerned with ;;-t.ue._
executiorz o “the will
( etn[)l1as’i.s’ i.S’£/{!)fi)[l.€(f)
As’ we have alreczdx-‘ .s’ctid que.s’tr’ort ()f’.ttiI1e}ar’e r1()I”e!efi(£e__c_tf .
in ;)r()c’eedin,e.v for the grant o{“–orobczte ()»r.”.ifetteri”.s* of.”
odmimI.s’tratiorz whatever th’e.re}’L0re tnight have. ht:-opherzed
in those I)’/()C'(?()dI”lZ(g’)A’» would ..’.4£(k-In.(%;S”fi1b[ihyh’I?-iC%_r£[[€V%I() the
it()LtS€* either’ {the ‘(i’;I[5t:El1at1I-‘ or of M rs’. M i the r ”
h V erJ1pt’tg_zS’i5.-“§S’it,t)[JlrTeci)
_ The ctbove ,r).o$-.?’t”t’o’.=.?: iS”~’i’e:’tercttec2′ by the Supreme Court in
‘:’_C’ETtNRt4.2V’J’!l,/~_1_L.v SHRILAL GOENKA vs’ JASJIT
“3._ it’: the _ fol I 0 win g words:
“TheejSurFc.’esst'()n Act is (1 .veif1«c()rztained code in so far as
the q’iae.s’ti()t1 ofntctking cm opp.’.icatiort for probatee, grant
or “ream-:1 of probate or on appeal (harried against the
decisiorz of the probate Court. This is cleori).= manifested
in the f’a.s’c’ieu!e of the provi.s*ior2.s’ Qfzhe Act. The probate
pr'()(.’eecIin.g.s= .s’ha.’.! he eondii(‘ted by the probate Court in
the mormer pr’e3c’I’iheci in the Act and in no other wctyas’.
The grant of probate with gc'();;;}: of the will annexed
39
E0. In the light. of the above legal position, there is no
ground made out to revoke the grant of probate nor is there any
tenable ground made out for removal of the Exeeutrix. The
petitions in Prob.CP 8/I999 and Pro’o.CP .10/1999i”afe._di1ence
dismissed.
Prob.CP.4/I990 is dismissed for..n,on–prosie€:i,itioii;”‘
Post Prob.CP 4/1989 for orders1’_i_a11d it
beforethe bie;:;:::«1 haibingétifie roster in due course.
sdi»-¥_i
Judge
nv-._
was Qmm.&%%%&¢hi
ti iilbvflfi,
M – i#’
/Fv be –*U”fV’~’l9’§9