Recently, the Bombay High Court drew a firm jurisdictional boundary around probate proceedings, holding that they cannot be transformed into arenas for adjudicating disputes over title or ownership. The Court emphasised that a challenge premised on the testator’s lack of ownership falls outside the very scope of probate inquiry, rendering such objectors strangers to the proceedings. Strengthening the limited and specialised nature of testamentary jurisdiction, the Court cautioned that allowing such pleas would fundamentally distort the purpose of probate and unsettle the settled framework of succession law.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a Will executed by Rajeshwari Nagarkar, under which certain properties were bequeathed to her son-in-law, while the remaining estate was distributed among her children. Following her demise, probate was granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Subsequently, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking revocation of the probate on the ground that the testator lacked title to the bequeathed properties. The Applicant opposed the maintainability of this revocation plea, however, the Trial Court rejected the objection, leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC before the High Court.
Contentions:
The applicant argued that the revocation application was fundamentally misconceived as it rested entirely on disputing the testator’s title, an issue beyond probate jurisdiction. The Counsel contended that a caveatable interest must be rooted in a claim through the testator, and not adverse to her title. Since the respondents questioned the very ownership of the testator and did not claim succession through her, they lacked the locus to maintain revocation proceedings.
On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the probate itself was unnecessary and legally inconsequential, particularly given the geographical location of the property and execution of the Will. The Counsel argued that the real dispute concerned title, for which they had already instituted a substantive civil suit. The Respondent further argued that even a slight interest in the estate suffices to maintain a caveat, and therefore the revocation application was maintainable.
Observation of the Court:
The Court emphasised that probate jurisdiction is strictly confined to examining the genuineness and due execution of a Will, and cannot be expanded to adjudicate disputes relating to title or ownership of property. It reiterated that any challenge to the testator’s authority to bequeath property falls outside the limited scope of probate proceedings.
The Court observed that a person who questions the very title of the testator cannot claim a caveatable interest, as such a challenge does not arise from succession through the testator but is adverse to it. In this regard, the Bench categorically held, “…Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have clearly questioned the title of the testator to make the Will and to bequeath the properties. That issue is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Probate Court.”
The Court further stated that entertaining such pleas would effectively convert probate proceedings into title suits, which is impermissible in law. It highlighted that the respondents had already availed the appropriate remedy by instituting a substantive civil suit, where issues of title could be properly adjudicated, thereby reinforcing that probate proceedings cannot be used as an alternate forum for resolving ownership disputes.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and held that the revocation application was not maintainable, leading to its dismissal.
Case Title: Sunil Waman Bhide Vs. Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Revision Application No.351 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud, Adv. Rhishikesh M. Pethe
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr Adv. S.M. Gorwadkar, Adv. Swaraj M. Sawant, Adv. Harshal N. Mule, Adv. Varun H. Thanawala, Adv. Sujay H. Gangal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
