High Court Judge Challenges Interpretation of Probate Law, Calls for Clarity on ‘Just Cause’ for Revocation
Last Updated on June 17, 2024 by News Desk
A Bombay High Court judge has raised questions about the exhaustiveness of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and its illustrations, which deal with the grounds on which probate of a will can be revoked or annulled for a ‘just cause’.
The judge was dealing with a case where a man was granted the probate (copy of a will certified as genuine under the seal of a court) concerning assets belonging to Rajesh Chowdhary, who died in July 2020.The respondent was granted the probate pursuant to a petition filed by the respondent on December 9, 2020.
However, the respondent’s brother contested this move, arguing that the grant could be said to be defective in substance due to the deceased man’s death under suspicious circumstances in Ecuador after having signed and executed the will in question.
The respondent, who had secured the probate for the will allegedly executed by the deceased man, argued that the grounds raised by the petitioner to seek the revocation of probate were not mentioned under Section 263 of the Succession Act (revocation or annulment for just cause).
The respondent contended that the illustrations under this provision on what constitutes “just cause” to revoke probate were exhaustive, and therefore, the High Court cannot revoke the grant already issued since none of the illustrations under Section 263 were applicable in this case.
The respondent cited the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench in Bal Gangadhar Tilak vs. Sakwarbai & Ors. and single judges’ judgments in cases like George Anthony Harris vs. Millicent Spencer and Sharad Shankarrao Mane and etc vs. Ashabai Shripati Mane. However, the petitioner argued that a contrary position was adopted in other cases, such as the Madras High Court judgment in Gita alias Gita Ravi vs. Mary Jenet James alias MJ James and others and the Supreme Court judgment in S Sundaram Pillai and others vs. VR Pattabiraman and others. These judgments stated that the explanations to Section 263 of the Succession Act were only illustrative and meant to explain the meaning of the provision.
Justice Pitale noted that the explanation to Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925 opened with the phrase, “just cause shall be deemed to exist where…”, which was a departure from the words used in the corresponding provision of the earlier Indian Succession Act of 1865.
Also, He disagreed with the conflicting judgments of the High Court’s co-ordinate Benches and requested the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice, who would assign a larger Bench to decide the question of law.
