Court Upholds Limited Scope of Probate Proceedings, Emphasizing Non-Adjudication of Testator’s Title or Capacity
The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed the application for revocation of probate concerning the will of the late Rajeshwari Nagarkar. The civil revision application was filed by Sunil Waman Bhide, the applicant and son-in-law of the testator, challenging the maintainability of a miscellaneous application seeking revocation of probate. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, emphasized that probate proceedings are confined to determining the genuineness of a will and do not extend to adjudicating the title of the testator or their capacity to execute the will.
The court's decision stems from the application filed by Laxman Gopal Kanhere and others, who questioned the validity of the probate granted to Rajeshwari's will, claiming the testator lacked title to the properties mentioned in the will. The court reiterated that individuals challenging the testator’s title or the capacity to make a will lack a caveatable interest and therefore cannot maintain an application for revocation of probate.
Justice Marne referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, which outlines that a caveatable interest requires the probate to prejudice the caveator’s right by defeating another line of succession. This judgment was contrasted with the Supreme Court’s decision in G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar, which suggested that even a slight interest in the estate could constitute a caveatable interest. However, the court reconciled these conflicting views by favoring the former judgment, as it was more applicable to the facts of the present case.
The court acknowledged the conflicting judgments from the Supreme Court but adhered to the principle that the High Court must attempt to reconcile such judgments and follow the one more aligned with the case at hand. Justice Marne concluded that since the respondents in the miscellaneous application were contesting the title of the testator rather than asserting a line of succession, they did not possess the necessary caveatable interest.
Ultimately, the Bombay High Court set aside the order of the lower court and dismissed the miscellaneous application for revocation of probate, affirming the limited scope of probate proceedings and the necessity of caveatable interest to challenge probate.
Bottom Line:
Probate proceedings do not adjudicate title of the testator in respect of the bequeathed properties or the validity of the testator's capacity to execute the Will.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sections 57, 213, 383; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115
Sunil Waman Bhide v. Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2867377
