LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can order an investigation into the whereabouts of an original Will when the probate records have been destroyed and the Will is untraceable after a long period.
CASE TYPE: Probate Law
Case Name: A. Wilson Prince vs. The Nazar & Ors.
Judgment Date: May 15, 2023
Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 5372
Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a court compel the production of a decades-old original Will when the relevant probate records have been destroyed and the Will itself is untraceable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a petitioner sought a copy of a Will from a probate proceeding that dated back to 1972. The court, finding the records destroyed and the Will untraceable, declined to order an investigation, emphasizing the impracticality of such a directive after so much time had passed. This judgment underscores the challenges in revisiting old probate matters, especially when key documents are missing. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Case Background
The case revolves around the estate of Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport, who passed away on January 24, 1972, in Udhagamandalam, Ooty. During his lifetime, Rev. Davenport had executed a Will on July 19, 1969, appointing M/s King and Partridge as the executor. Following his death, a senior partner of the firm, Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, applied for probate of the Will. The probate was granted by the court in Ooty on July 29, 1972. The executor filed an inventory of the estate on January 20, 1973, and submitted final accounts on July 9, 1973. The matter regarding the probate of the Will was then considered closed.
Decades later, on January 30, 2016, Smt. Mary Brigit, claiming to be a beneficiary under the Will, applied for a copy of the probate. When the copy was not provided, she filed a Writ Petition No. 11266 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking a direction to the District Judge, Ooty, to furnish the copy of the probate. The executor, M/s King and Partridge, through a partner, P. Ranganatha Reddy, stated that the firm had no records of the case and that the original executor, Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, had retired in 1987 and died in 1988. The District Court, in its counter-affidavit, stated that the original records of the probate case were destroyed in 1998, following the Destruction of Records Act, 1917. The court also noted that it was common practice to return the original Will to the executor with the probate order.
After Smt. Mary Brigit’s death, her successors were impleaded in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the unavailability of records. Only one of the successors, A. Wilson Prince, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 19, 1969 | Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport executes his Will. |
| January 24, 1972 | Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport dies in Udhagamandalam, Ooty. |
| July 7, 1972 | Probate case No. 15 of 1972 filed by Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy of M/s King and Partridge. |
| July 29, 1972 | Probate granted by the court in Ooty. |
| January 20, 1973 | Executor files inventory with the court. |
| July 9, 1973 | Executor submits final accounts to the court. |
| 1987 | Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, the executor, retires. |
| 1988 | Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, the executor, dies. |
| February 22, 1992 | Life estate holder Gabrial passes away. |
| 1998 | Records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972 destroyed by the District Court. |
| January 30, 2016 | Smt. Mary Brigit applies for a copy of the probate. |
| 2018 | Smt. Mary Brigit files Writ Petition No. 11266 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. |
| November 25, 2021 | Successors of Smt. Mary Brigit impleaded in the High Court. |
| May 15, 2023 | Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The matter began with the filing of probate case No. 15 of 1972 in the Sub Court of Udhagamandalam by Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, a partner at M/s King and Partridge. The probate was granted on July 29, 1972. Years later, Smt. Mary Brigit filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking a copy of the probate and the Will. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the records had been destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917. The High Court also noted that the original Will was likely returned to the executor along with the probate order. The High Court’s decision was then challenged in the Supreme Court by A. Wilson Prince, one of the successors of Smt. Mary Brigit.
Legal Framework
The judgment references the following legal provisions:
- Section 222(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the grant of probate to an executor appointed by a Will. It states, “Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will.”
- Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section pertains to the jurisdiction of courts in granting probate. It states, “Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will.”
- Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the duties of an executor, including the filing of an inventory and final accounts. It states, “An executor or administrator shall, within six months from the grant of probate or letters of administration, or within such further time as the Court which granted the probate or letters may from time to time appoint, exhibit in that Court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession, and all the credits, and also all the debts owing by any person to which the testator or intestate was entitled at the time of his death; and shall also, within one year from the grant or within such further time as the said Court may from time to time appoint, exhibit an account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to his hands, and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of.”
- Destruction of Records Act, 1917: This act provides the legal framework for the destruction of old court records after a specified period.
These provisions are relevant to the case as they establish the legal procedure for probate, the duties of executors, and the rules for the maintenance and destruction of court records. The court’s decision is also influenced by the civil rules of practice concerning the preservation and inspection of Wills.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner argued that original Wills in testamentary matters are always kept in safe custody and cannot be destroyed under the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
- The petitioner contended that the respondents had an obligation to furnish details and records related to O.P. No. 15 of 1972, including the original Will or a copy.
- The petitioner suggested that a vigilance inquiry would likely reveal the whereabouts of the Will.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondents (District Judge’s office and the executor firm) stated that the records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972 were destroyed in 1998, following the procedure under the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
- The respondents clarified that the original Will was likely returned to the executor with the probate order as per the prevailing practice at the time.
- The executor firm stated that they had conducted a thorough search but could not find any documents related to the case.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioner | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Obligation to Preserve Will | ✓ Original Wills must be preserved. ✓ Destruction of Records Act, 1917 does not apply to original Wills. |
✓ Records destroyed as per Destruction of Records Act, 1917. ✓ Original Will likely returned to executor with probate order. |
| Duty to Furnish Records | ✓ Respondents must provide details and records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972. ✓ Respondents are bound to supply the original Will or its copy. |
✓ Records were destroyed. ✓ No records available with the executor. |
| Need for Inquiry | ✓ Vigilance inquiry would reveal the whereabouts of the Will. | ✓ No basis to order inquiry. ✓ Matter is too old. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:
- Whether the court can order an investigation into the whereabouts of an original Will when the probate records have been destroyed and the Will is untraceable after a long period.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the court can order an investigation into the whereabouts of an original Will when the probate records have been destroyed and the Will is untraceable after a long period. | The Supreme Court declined to order an investigation, noting that the records were destroyed in 1998 and the original Will was likely returned to the executor. The court found it impractical to order an investigation after such a long period, especially since the petitioner had not even seen a copy of the Will and was essentially on a “treasure hunt”. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books in this judgment. However, the following legal provisions were considered:
- Section 222(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the grant of probate to an executor appointed by a Will.
- Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section pertains to the jurisdiction of courts in granting probate.
- Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the duties of an executor, including the filing of an inventory and final accounts.
- Destruction of Records Act, 1917: This act provides the legal framework for the destruction of old court records after a specified period.
| Authority | Type | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 222(1), Indian Succession Act, 1925 | Statute | Explained the legal basis for granting probate to an executor. |
| Section 272, Indian Succession Act, 1925 | Statute | Explained the jurisdictional aspect of granting probate. |
| Section 317, Indian Succession Act, 1925 | Statute | Explained the duties of the executor to file inventory and accounts. |
| Destruction of Records Act, 1917 | Statute | Explained the legal basis for destruction of old court records. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s argument that original Wills are always kept in safe custody and cannot be destroyed. | The Court acknowledged that original Wills should be preserved but noted that if a Will is untraceable after a long time, there is no way out. The court also noted that the original Will would have been handed over to the executor with the probate. |
| Petitioner’s contention that the respondents had an obligation to furnish details and records related to O.P. No. 15 of 1972. | The Court noted that the records were destroyed in 1998 as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917. |
| Petitioner’s suggestion that a vigilance inquiry would likely reveal the whereabouts of the Will. | The Court refused to order an investigation, stating that the petitioner was on a “treasure hunt” without even seeing a copy of the Will. |
| Respondent’s statement that the records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972 were destroyed in 1998. | The Court accepted this statement as a valid reason for the unavailability of records. |
| Respondent’s clarification that the original Will was likely returned to the executor with the probate order. | The Court accepted this as a plausible explanation, given the practice at the time. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court considered the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly **Sections 222(1), 272 and 317**, to understand the process of granting probate and the duties of the executor. The court noted that the executor had fulfilled their duties by obtaining the probate and submitting the inventory and accounts.
- The court also considered the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, to acknowledge that the records of the probate case were destroyed as per the law.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:
- Time Elapsed: The court emphasized the long period that had passed since the probate was granted in 1972 and the destruction of records in 1998.
- Lack of Knowledge: The petitioner had not seen a copy of the Will and was essentially on a “treasure hunt,” making it difficult for the court to provide relief.
- Practicality: It was deemed impractical to order an investigation into the whereabouts of the Will after such a long time, especially when the records were destroyed in accordance with the law.
- Executor’s Actions: The court noted that the executor had fulfilled their duties by obtaining the probate and submitting the inventory and accounts.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Time Elapsed | 40% |
| Lack of Knowledge | 30% |
| Practicality | 20% |
| Executor’s Actions | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Probate granted in 1972
Records destroyed in 1998 as per law
Petitioner seeks copy of Will in 2016
Petitioner has not seen the Will
Court refuses to order investigation
The court’s reasoning was based on the facts of the case, primarily the destruction of records and the long passage of time. The court also considered the legal framework, including the Indian Succession Act and the Destruction of Records Act, but the factual aspects weighed more heavily in its decision.
The Supreme Court observed, “It is true that the original Will submitted for probate could not have been destroyed. In the normal circumstances, with the probate embossed on the Will, the original should have been handed over to the Executor.” However, the court also noted, “Today it is not possible at this distance of time to find out (i) whether it was actually destroyed; or (ii) whether it was handed over to the Executor; or (iii) whether the Executor having received it, lost it.” The court further stated, “On a guesswork made by the writ petitioner, this Court cannot order an investigation into what happened to the Will.”
There were no minority opinions in this case as the judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.
Key Takeaways
- Court records, including those related to probate, can be destroyed after a certain period as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
- Original Wills submitted for probate are typically returned to the executor with the probate order.
- Courts may be unable to provide relief in cases where records have been destroyed and the original documents are untraceable after a long period.
- Parties seeking relief in old probate matters must have a clear basis for their claim, not just a “treasure hunt” based on guesswork.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed without any costs.
Development of Law
This judgment does not introduce a new legal principle or doctrine. Instead, it reinforces the practical limitations of revisiting old probate matters, particularly when records have been destroyed. The ratio decidendi of the case is that courts cannot order an investigation into the whereabouts of an original Will when the probate records have been destroyed and the Will is untraceable after a long period, especially when the petitioner’s claim is based on mere speculation.
Conclusion
In the case of A. Wilson Prince vs. The Nazar & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s decision not to order an investigation into the whereabouts of an original Will from a 1972 probate case. The court found that the records had been destroyed as per the law and that the original Will was likely returned to the executor. The court emphasized the impracticality of ordering an investigation after such a long period, particularly when the petitioner had not even seen a copy of the Will. This judgment highlights the challenges in revisiting old probate matters and underscores the importance of maintaining proper records and acting promptly when seeking relief.