Can an executor of a prior will challenge a subsequent will? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case regarding probate and caveatable interest. This case clarifies the rights of an executor of a previous will to contest a later will. The judgment was delivered by Justices Arun Mishra and L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.
Case Background
Smt. Shrutika Doshi executed a Will on March 1, 2013. She appointed her husband, Tejash Doshi, as the executor and trustee. Her minor daughters were the beneficiaries. The Will stated that if Tejash Doshi could not act as executor, Yash Vardhan Mall would take his place. This Will was registered on May 25, 2013. Smt. Shrutika Doshi passed away on May 26, 2013.
Another Will, dated April 22, 2013, surfaced. This Will also appointed Tejash Doshi as the executor. In case he was unable to act, his father would replace him. Tejash Doshi did not apply for probate of the March 1, 2013, Will for two and a half years. As a result, Yash Vardhan Mall applied for probate of the Will. Subsequently, Tejash Doshi filed a petition for probate of the April 22, 2013, Will in the High Court at Calcutta.
Yash Vardhan Mall filed a caveat on June 15, 2016, and an affidavit supporting the caveat on January 10, 2017. Tejash Doshi then applied for the discharge of the caveat.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 1, 2013 | Smt. Shrutika Doshi executes a Will, appointing Tejash Doshi as executor, and Yash Vardhan Mall as alternate executor. |
| April 22, 2013 | Smt. Shrutika Doshi executes another Will, appointing Tejash Doshi as executor. |
| May 25, 2013 | The Will dated March 1, 2013, is registered. |
| May 26, 2013 | Smt. Shrutika Doshi passes away. |
| June 15, 2016 | Yash Vardhan Mall files a caveat against the probate of the Will dated April 22, 2013. |
| January 10, 2017 | Yash Vardhan Mall files an affidavit in support of the caveat. |
| April 17, 2017 | District Judge, Alipore, dismisses Yash Vardhan Mall’s probate petition. |
| June 28, 2017 | Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta allows the application to discharge the caveat. |
| November 23, 2017 | Supreme Court of India sets aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The District Judge, Alipore, dismissed Yash Vardhan Mall’s petition for probate of the March 1, 2013 Will. The reason was that the probate application for the April 22, 2013 Will was pending. An appeal against this order is pending in the High Court at Calcutta.
A Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta allowed Tejash Doshi’s application to discharge the caveat. The Single Judge stated that the affidavit filed by Yash Vardhan Mall did not disclose legal grounds to object to the grant of probate. The Single Judge also held that Yash Vardhan Mall did not have a caveatable interest.
The Division Bench of the High Court held that an executor of a previous Will has the right to lodge a caveat against a subsequent Will of the same testator. The Division Bench noted that even if the executor is not a legatee, they have an obligation to obtain probate and administer the estate. The Division Bench agreed that Yash Vardhan Mall had sufficient interest to lodge a caveat. However, they refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order, stating that the affidavit did not doubt the execution of the April 22, 2013 Will.
Legal Framework
The case refers to the Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914. Rule 24 states that any person intending to oppose the issuing of a grant of probate must file a caveat. Rule 25 requires an affidavit in support of the caveat, stating the caveator’s right and interest, and the grounds of objection. Rule 30 allows the Court to direct a trial of an issue as to the caveator’s interest. If the caveator has no interest, the Court can discharge the caveat.
Specifically, Rule 25 of the Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914 states:
“Affidavit in support of caveat .—Where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for a grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the will annexed, the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be filed within eight days of the caveat being lodged, notwithstanding the long vacation. Such affidavit shall state the right and interest of caveator, and the grounds of the objections to the application .”
Arguments
Yash Vardhan Mall argued that as the executor of the registered Will dated March 1, 2013, he had a right to challenge the subsequent Will. He stated that the registered Will should be treated as the last Will. He did not doubt the execution of the Will dated April 22, 2013, but asserted the validity of the earlier registered Will.
Tejash Doshi argued that the affidavit filed by Yash Vardhan Mall did not raise any objections to the execution of the April 22, 2013 Will. He contended that the caveat should be discharged.
The High Court Division Bench held that the Appellant has a right to object to the grant of probate of the Will dated 22.04.2017, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge for the reason that the affidavit filed in support of the caveat did not disclose any ground to doubt the due execution of the Will dated 22.04.2013.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Yash Vardhan Mall’s Submission |
|
| Tejash Doshi’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in discharging the caveat filed by the Appellant, despite acknowledging his caveatable interest.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit filed by the Appellant fulfilled the requirements of Rule 25 of the Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914. | The Supreme Court held that the affidavit filed by the Appellant did fulfill the requirements of Rule 25. The affidavit clearly stated the Appellant’s right and interest as the executor of the earlier Will, and the grounds for objection to the application for probate of the later Will. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the caveat filed by the Appellant, despite acknowledging his caveatable interest. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discharging the caveat. The Court held that once a caveatable interest was established, the caveator should be allowed to contest the probate proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court referred to the case of Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC p.300 to discuss caveatable interest. The Court stated that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and the existence of a caveatable interest would depend on the facts of each case.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC p.300 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to state that no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding caveatable interest, and it would depend on the facts of each case. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Yash Vardhan Mall’s claim that he has a right to challenge the subsequent Will as the executor of the earlier registered Will. | The Court agreed that as an executor of the prior will, the Appellant has a caveatable interest and the right to object to the grant of probate of the subsequent will. |
| Tejash Doshi’s claim that the affidavit filed by Yash Vardhan Mall did not raise any objections to the execution of the April 22, 2013 Will. | The Court held that the affidavit filed in support of the caveat, did fulfill the conditions of Rule 25. The Court stated that the affidavit mentioned the right and interest of the caveator, and the grounds for objection to the application. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC p.300 | The Court followed the principle laid down in this case, stating that the existence of a caveatable interest depends on the specific facts of each case. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the Appellant, as the executor of the earlier registered Will, had a legitimate interest in contesting the subsequent Will. The Court emphasized that the affidavit filed by the Appellant fulfilled the requirements of Rule 25 of the Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914. The Court stated that the affidavit mentioned the right and interest of the caveator, and the grounds for objection to the application.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s right as executor of the earlier Will | 40% |
| Compliance with Rule 25 | 40% |
| Caveatable interest | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Appellant is the executor of a registered Will
Appellant files a caveat against a subsequent Will
Affidavit in support of the caveat mentions his right and interest
Supreme Court holds that the caveat should not have been discharged
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discharging the caveat. The Court noted that once a caveatable interest was established, the caveator should be allowed to contest the probate proceedings. The Court stated that the affidavit filed by the Appellant fulfilled the conditions of Rule 25.
The Court stated, “The right and interest of the caveator as the executor of rival Will dated 01.03.2013 have been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the caveat and the High Court rightly upheld the contention on behalf of the Appellant that he has caveatable interest.”
The Court also noted, “On a detailed scrutiny of the affidavit filed in support of the caveat, we are satisfied that the Division Bench went wrong in not permitting the Appellant to contest the proceeding of probate of the Will dated 22.04.2013, especially after holding that he has a caveatable interest.”
The Court further stated, “For the reasons stated supra, we are satisfied that the affidavit filed in support of the caveat fulfils the condition of Rule 25.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- An executor of a prior registered Will has a caveatable interest to object to the grant of probate of a subsequent Will of the same testator.
- The affidavit filed in support of the caveat must state the caveator’s right and interest and the grounds of objection.
- Once a caveatable interest is established, the caveator should be allowed to contest the probate proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that an executor of a prior registered Will has a sufficient caveatable interest to challenge a subsequent Will. This reinforces the principle that the role of an executor is not merely procedural but also includes the responsibility to ensure the proper administration of the estate according to the testator’s valid will.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the Appellant, as the executor of the earlier Will, had a caveatable interest and the right to contest the probate of the subsequent Will. The Court emphasized that the affidavit filed by the Appellant fulfilled the requirements of Rule 25.
Category:
- Probate Law
- Caveatable Interest
- Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914
- Rule 25, Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914
FAQ
Q: What is a caveatable interest in probate law?
A: A caveatable interest is a legal right that allows a person to object to the grant of probate of a will. This right is typically held by those who have a direct interest in the estate, such as beneficiaries or executors of prior wills.
Q: Can an executor of a previous will challenge a later will?
A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court judgment, an executor of a prior registered will has a caveatable interest and can challenge a subsequent will of the same testator.
Q: What should an affidavit in support of a caveat contain?
A: The affidavit must state the caveator’s right and interest in the estate and the grounds for their objection to the probate application.
Q: What happens if a caveatable interest is established?
A: Once a caveatable interest is established, the caveator has the right to contest the probate proceedings and present their case.