Probate Liable To Be Revoked For Non-Impleadment Of Necessary Parties, Suppression Of Facts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a probate granted without impleading necessary parties and without full disclosure of material facts is liable to be revoked.

“…if a party has a caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, it is entitled to be served before the final order is passed. Further, if a person who has even a slight interest in the estate of the testator, he is entitled to file a caveat and contest the grant of the probate of the will of the testator.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi heard a case where a woman obtained probate of a Will despite not impleading her siblings or the appellants, being the subsequent purchasers of the property originally transferred by her father. The probate was later revoked on the appellants' application, as they contended that they were necessary parties who had been excluded from the probate proceedings.

The dispute concerned properties in Coimbatore, allegedly bequeathed under an unregistered Will executed in 1976 by the testator in favour of his daughter, Respondent no.1. However, crucially, the testator sold the same property shortly after executing the Will through a registered sale deed in 1976. Appellants-subsequent purchasers acquired the property in 1997. Despite this, Respondent No.1 obtained ex parte probate in 2009, without impleading his siblings and the Appellant.

The appellants later sought revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, which the District Court allowed. The High Court, however, reversed this decision—prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi observed that persons who acquire an interest (like Appellants) in the estate before initiation of probate proceedings are entitled to notice.

Further, the Court found that the Respondent No.1 had suppressed the material facts, particularly the existence of the sale deed executed by the testator and the role and existence of other legal heirs. Notably, the Court observed that while these facts were omitted in the probate petition, they were explicitly pleaded in a parallel civil suit filed within days, demonstrating conscious concealment on the part of the Respondent No.1.

“…in the said probate proceedings filed under Section 276 of the ISA by present respondent no. 1, she had not joined her two brothers/their legal heirs, as well as the present appellants as party respondents. No citations were issued to them. Once again, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to observe that in O.S. No. 110 of 2009 filed by the present respondent no. 1 on 29.04.2009 (within a period of 08 days only from filing of the probate proceedings), she herself has averred in the plaint that her two brothers were not inclined to partition this property and she came to know that her two brothers had forcibly taken out her father and obtained his signature against his will to dispose of his properties, including the suit properties, for which the Will was executed in favour of her.”, the court observed.

“it can be said that the respondent no. 1 herein obtained the order of grant of probate in her favour by suppressing material facts, and no citations were issued to the brothers of the respondent no. 1/their legal heirs and the present appellants, before the grant of probate. Hence, the District Court was justified in revoking the order of grant of probate in favour of respondent no. 1.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the District Court revoking the grant of probate was restored.

Headnote

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 263 & Section 283(1)(c) – Revocation of Probate – Just Cause – Suppression of Material Facts & Non-issuance of Citations - The Supreme Court restored the order of the District Court revoking the probate of an unregistered Will, which had been granted to the testator's daughter - Supreme Court found that Respondent No. 1 had deliberately suppressed material facts and failed to implead necessary parties, including her two brothers (or their legal heirs) and the subsequent purchasers/alienees (Appellants) who had acquired rights over the suit property prior to the initiation of the probate proceedings - Pendente Lite vs. Prior Alienees - A clear distinction must be made between a transferee pendente lite and an alienee who acquires an interest in the testator's estate prior to the commencement of probate proceedings - An alienee who acquires an interest prior to the filing of the probate petition is an interested party entitled to special citations under Section 283(1)(c) of the Act - Just Cause for Revocation - Fraudulent suppression of material transactions (such as a registered sale deed executed by the testator during his lifetime after the alleged execution of the Will) and the intentional omission to cite parties who have a caveatable or slight interest in the estate constitutes a "just cause" under Explanation (b) and Illustration (ii) of Section 263 of the Act.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 263 – Caveatable Interest – Entitlement to Oppose Probate - Any interest in the estate of the deceased, however slight, or even the bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle an aggrieved party to file a caveat, oppose a testamentary document, or seek revocation of probate if the grant was obtained without their knowledge or proper citations - A purchaser who acquires an interest from the legal heirs or from the testator himself during his lifetime falls within the ambit of a person "who ought to have been cited" under Illustration (ii) to Section 263. [Relied on Basanti Devi v. Ravi Prakash Ram Prasad Jaiswal, (2008) 1 SCC 26; Sunil Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra, (2007) 8 SCC 506; Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 554; G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar and Ors, (2008) 10 SCC 489; Paras 20-25]

Cause Title: S. LEOREX SEBASTIAN & ANR. versus SAROJINI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shubham Kothari, Adv. Mrs. Aiyushi Daga, Adv. Mr. Shubham P. Chopra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. P Raja Ram, Adv.