Probate Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes; Person Challenging Testator's Ownership Is Stranger To Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that questions relating to title or ownership of property cannot be adjudicated in probate proceedings and that a person who challenges the testator's title to the property bequeathed under a will is a stranger to probate jurisdiction. The Court observed that probate proceedings are confined to examining the genuineness and due execution of the will, and any dispute concerning ownership of the property must be adjudicated in independent civil proceedings.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a Civil Revision Application challenging an order of the Civil Judge, which had rejected the applicant's objection to the maintainability of an application seeking revocation of probate. The dispute arose from a will whose probate was granted on 13 December 2011. a miscellaneous application seeking revocation of the probate on the ground that the testator did not have title to the properties which she had bequeathed under the will. The trial court had rejected the applicant's objection to the maintainability of the revocation proceedings and held that the application for revocation was maintainable.

The Court examined the scope of probate jurisdiction and the concept of caveatable interest in light of several precedents of the Supreme Court, including Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha [(2008) 4 SCC 300] and G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar [(2008) 10 SCC 489]. It noted that while G. Gopal had observed that even a slight interest in the estate of the testator may entitle a person to file a caveat, the earlier decision in Krishna Kumar Birla had laid down that a caveator must demonstrate that the grant of probate would prejudice his right by defeating some other line of succession through which he claims inheritance.

The Court further observed that the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Birla had clearly held that any person questioning the title of the testator to the property or the authority of the testator to dispose of it by will would be a stranger to probate proceedings because such questions cannot be effectively adjudicated in that jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the respondents' revocation application was fundamentally based on the assertion that the testator herself had no title to the properties in question. The Court held that such a plea directly challenges the title of the testator and falls outside the scope of probate jurisdiction. Since the respondents were not claiming to inherit the estate through the testator in the event the probate was revoked, they could not be said to possess a caveatable interest in the estate.

“… 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. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have a caveatable interest for maintaining the application for revocation of probate,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted that the respondents had already instituted a substantive civil suit where the question of title could be properly adjudicated.

Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court had committed a material irregularity in holding the revocation application to be maintainable. The Court set aside the order dated 20 December 2022 and held that the application for revocation of probate filed by the respondents was not maintainable. The Civil Revision Application was accordingly allowed, and the revocation application was dismissed.

Case Title: Sunil Waman Bhide v. Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere & Ors. [CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.351 OF 2023]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

Click Here To Read/Download Order