Recently, The Supreme Court considered special leave petitions filed by the State challenging the common judgment of the High Court which upheld the validity of a Will executed by the deceased testator and granted probate in favor of a trust constituted under the Will. The State challenged the grant of probate on the basis that the properties involved had been escheated to the Government under a State Escheats Regulation Act and raised the preliminary issue of locus standi to file the petitions.
Brief Facts:
The dispute concerned the estate of a testator who executed a Will in 1985, naming the Khetri Trust as beneficiary. After his death in 1987, the State of Rajasthan took possession of the properties under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, claiming the testator had died intestate without heirs. Some distant relatives (agnates) initially challenged the Will through objections and a separate suit, but later withdrew both without liberty to refile. While the Delhi High Court at first refused probate, its Division Bench reversed that decision and granted probate in favour of the Khetri Trust. The State of Rajasthan then moved the Supreme Court, asserting that the estate had escheated to the Government, giving it locus to contest the probate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The State of Rajasthan argued that it had locus standi to question the grant of probate, as the properties in dispute had already escheated to the State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act. Relying on Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the State submitted that where a Hindu dies intestate and without heirs, the property devolves upon the Government. It was contended that there had been a failure of heirs in the present matter, and therefore, the State’s possession of the properties was lawful and justified.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents, including the Khetri Trust, opposed the State’s claim by asserting that the properties were subject to testamentary succession and not intestate succession, as the Will had already been probated by a competent court. They emphasized that once probate is granted, it can only be challenged by rightful heirs under the Indian Succession Act, and not by the State invoking escheat provisions. The respondents further argued that locus standi arises only in cases of clear failure of heirs or patent intestacy, neither of which was present here. Additionally, they pointed out that agnates who had initially contested the Will had withdrawn their objections and the related suit, and were therefore estopped from re-agitating the issue.
Observation of the Court:
The Court clarified the narrow applicability of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, explaining, “If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.”
The Court observed, “When the male Hindu dies upon making a testament or a Will, the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, would apply. If the Will is probated or proved before a competent court of law, then the legatees under the Will would succeed to the demised testator’s properties.”
Regarding the role of the Government and locus standi, the Court stated, “This means that till that stage arrives, the Government is a stranger to the probate proceedings as well as any proceeding regarding succession under the personal law. Merely because the State of Rajasthan in the instant case has invoked the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956, would not give locus standi to assail the grant of probate of the Will of the testator.”
The Court stressed that locus standi to challenge probate lies solely with persons who would otherwise succeed under the Will or intestacy, stating, “The grant of probate by a competent court of law can be assailed only by those who are the likely heirs if the Will is to fail, by either filing an appeal against it or by seeking revocation of the grant of probate under Section 263 of the IS Act, 1925. Further, it is only when there is failure of heirs that the estate of an intestate Hindu would devolve on the Government under Section 29 of the Act.”
The Division Bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, "We find that firstly, there is a total suppression of the fact that the Civil Case No.1 of 2005 filed, inter alia, by the petitioners herein was withdrawn by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule I of the CPC. The said withdrawal was sought without seeking any liberty in the matter. The said suit was with regard to a challenge to the validity of the very same Will which is under question in the instant case. The suppression of an important material fact before this Court is a fact which would dissuade this Court from exercising its discretion to consider the matter any further under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
Thus, the Court firmly established that the doctrine of escheat does not apply to the properties in question due to testamentary succession evidenced by a valid probate order.
The decision of the Court:
In light of these findings, the Court held that the State of Rajasthan had no locus standi to maintain the petitions. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 each on the agnate petitioners for suppression. The Court affirmed that the probate granted by the High Court remained valid and effective, and directed that all consequential legal steps should follow.
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan Vs. Ajit Singh & Others
Case No: SLP (C) NO(S).14721-14723/2024
Coram: Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Picture Source :
