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. Cause Title: S. LEOREX SEBASTIAN & ANR. versus SAROJINI & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 408Click here to download judgmentAppearance: 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.

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

Yash Mittal

All interested parties must be impleaded and notified in probate proceedings, the Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

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

Yash Mittal

All interested parties must be impleaded and notified in probate proceedings, the Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers