Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1932 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1932 (9) TMI 14 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to try the suit.
2. Proper procedure for revocation of probate.
3. Competency of the High Court Judge in exercising testamentary jurisdiction.
4. Finality and conclusiveness of probate grants.
5. Proper Court for revocation of probate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to try the suit:
The primary issue was whether the High Court, in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, had the authority to try a suit that included a prayer for the revocation of probate. The defendant argued that such matters should be dealt with by the Court sitting as a Court of Probate, exercising its testamentary and intestate jurisdiction, rather than its ordinary civil jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the grant of probate must be contested before the Court from which the grant issued, emphasizing that the jurisdiction for probate matters is separate and must be handled by the appropriate division within the High Court.

2. Proper procedure for revocation of probate:
The Court examined the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly focusing on the chapters dealing with the grant, alteration, and revocation of probate and letters of administration. It was established that an application for revocation of probate must be made by petition to the Court that granted the probate, not by a civil suit. The Court highlighted that the proper procedure for revocation is through a petition in the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction, not through a suit filed on the original side of the High Court.

3. Competency of the High Court Judge in exercising testamentary jurisdiction:
The judgment discussed the competency of High Court Judges to exercise jurisdiction over testamentary matters. It was clarified that any Judge of the High Court has the authority to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court on its original side, including testamentary and intestate matters. However, for the sake of convenience and proper administration of justice, different matters are assigned to different Judges. The Court concluded that while a Judge is competent to handle testamentary matters, the specific assignment of business must be adhered to.

4. Finality and conclusiveness of probate grants:
The judgment emphasized that probate, once granted, is conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased and operates upon the whole estate, establishing the will from the death of the testator. Probate is conclusive evidence of the validity of the will, and any challenge to it must be made through the proper channels. The Court noted that unless probate is revoked for "just cause" under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the plaintiffs could not obtain a declaration that the will is null and void or that they are the heirs of the deceased.

5. Proper Court for revocation of probate:
The Court reiterated that the proper Court for revocation of probate is the one that granted it, i.e., the Court exercising testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. The Court cited various precedents to support this view, emphasizing that allowing the validity of a will to be questioned in a civil suit after the grant of probate would lead to confusion and endless litigation. The judgment concluded that the plaintiffs must apply to the proper Court for revocation of probate by filing a petition, and the suit filed on the original side for revocation of probate was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the plaintiffs to file a separate petition for revocation of probate in the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction within a week. The suit was stayed, and the notice of motion adjourned, with liberty to the parties to apply for the suit's hearing and final disposal based on the outcome of the petition for revocation. The plaintiffs were ordered to bear their own costs of the hearing, with the defendant's costs to be costs in the cause.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates