Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act in Delhi: Kanta Yadav vs. Om Prakash Yadav (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 24, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 727
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a suit regarding a will be dismissed for not obtaining probate or letter of administration in Delhi? The Supreme Court addressed this question, clarifying the applicability of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in the National Capital Region of Delhi. The Court examined whether obtaining probate is mandatory for wills made in Delhi, which was previously part of the State of Punjab, and held that it is not necessary. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute arising from wills and codicils executed by Zorawar Singh and his wife, Smt. Ram Pyari. Zorawar Singh owned property in New Delhi and made a Will on June 16, 1985, and a codicil on October 21, 1995, bequeathing his self-acquired property to both parties involved in the dispute. Zorawar Singh passed away on January 4, 1986. Following his death, two suits were filed. The present respondents filed CS (OS) No. 3310 of 2012, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction regarding Zorawar Singh’s Will and codicil, as well as a will dated June 18, 2009, executed by Smt. Ram Pyari. The present appellant filed CS (OS) No. 430 of 2012, claiming natural succession to the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court initially allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and rejected the suit, stating that it was not maintainable under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that the bar under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, did not apply in this case. The Division Bench directed that both suits be combined and common evidence be led together. The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 213 and Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, states:

“Section 213 – Right as executor or legatee when established. -(1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed. (2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans, and shall only apply – (i) in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of section 57; and (ii) in the case of Wills made by any Parsi dying, after the commencement of the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 1962 (16 of 1962.) where such Wills are made within the local limits of the [ordinary original civil jurisdiction] of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, and where such Wills are made outside those limits, in so far as they relate to immovable property situated within those limits.]”

Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, states:

“Section 57 – Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills made by Hindus, etc. – The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply- (a) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property situate within those territories or limits; and (c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b): Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such Will or codicil.”

These sections, read together, determine whether a probate or letter of administration is required for a will to be recognized in court. Section 213(1) generally requires probate or letters of administration, but Section 213(2), read with Section 57, carves out exceptions for certain wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains.

Arguments

The respondents argued that Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies only to properties and parties located in Bengal, Madras, or Bombay. Therefore, since the properties and parties in this case were in Delhi, which was not part of those territories, it was not necessary to seek probate or a letter of administration for the will. The respondents contended that the bar under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is not applicable to the present case.

The appellant’s arguments are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text. However, it can be inferred that the appellant was likely arguing for the necessity of obtaining probate or a letter of administration, based on the initial decision of the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

✓ Whether it is necessary to seek probate or letter of administration in respect of a Will in terms of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in the National Capital Region of Delhi.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh & Ors. [AIR 1962 P&H 382]: The Punjab High Court held that probate is not required for wills made outside Bengal and the local original jurisdictional limits of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay, unless the will relates to immovable property within those territories.
• M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni & Ors. [1968 AIR (Punjab) 108]: The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply when both the person and property are outside the territories of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay.
• Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane & Ors. [AIR 2002 Delhi 6]: A Single Bench of Delhi High Court held that if a will is made in Delhi relating to immovable property in Delhi by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Jaina, no probate is required.
• Shri Rajan Suri & Anr. v. The State & Anr. [AIR 2006 Delhi 48]: The Division Bench of Delhi High Court concluded that probate is not mandatory for wills made in Delhi.
• Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India [(2001) 4 SCC 325]: The Supreme Court held that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply to Hindus in respect of wills made outside the territories of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay or regarding immovable properties situated outside those territories.

Statutes:

• Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section stipulates that no right as an executor or legatee can be established in any court unless a probate or letter of administration has been granted. However, this requirement does not apply to certain wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains, as specified in Section 57.
• Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section specifies the classes of wills to which the provisions of Part IX of the Act apply. It states that the provisions apply to wills made within the territories of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, or relating to immovable property within those territories. It also applies to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains after January 1, 1927, not covered under clauses (a) and (b).

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The court relied on Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh & Ors. [AIR 1962 P&H 382]* to support the view that probate is not required for wills made outside the specified territories.
• The court followed M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni & Ors. [1968 AIR (Punjab) 108]* to reinforce that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply when both the person and property are outside the specified territories.
• The court referred to Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane & Ors. [AIR 2002 Delhi 6]* to highlight that probate is not required for wills made in Delhi concerning immovable property in Delhi by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains.
• The court cited Shri Rajan Suri & Anr. v. The State & Anr. [AIR 2006 Delhi 48]* to support the conclusion that probate is not mandatory for wills made in Delhi.
• The court cited Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India [(2001) 4 SCC 325]* to emphasize that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply to Hindus for wills made outside or concerning properties outside the specified territories.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of Section 213 and Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the consistent view taken by various High Courts and the Supreme Court itself. The Court emphasized that the requirement of probate under Section 213(1) is not universally applicable and is subject to the exceptions carved out in Section 213(2) read with Section 57. The Court considered the historical context, noting that the National Capital Region of Delhi was previously part of the State of Punjab, and that the provisions of Section 57 apply only to the territories of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay. The Court also took into account the consistent judicial view that probate is not necessary for wills made in Delhi when the property and parties are also in Delhi.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, should apply universally, requiring probate for all wills. However, this interpretation was rejected because it would negate the exceptions provided in Section 213(2) read with Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court emphasized the importance of harmoniously interpreting the provisions of the Act and giving effect to the legislative intent behind the exceptions.

The decision was reached by considering the plain language of the statute, the historical context, and the consistent judicial view. The court concluded that the bar under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply to wills made in Delhi when the property and parties are also in Delhi.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is not universally applicable.
• Section 213(2) read with Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides exceptions for certain wills.
• The territories specified in Section 57(a) and (b) do not include Delhi.
• Consistent judicial view supports the position that probate is not required for wills made in Delhi.

The court quoted the following from the judgment in Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India [(2001) 4 SCC 325]:

“A combined reading of Sections 213 and 57 of the Act would show that where the parties to the will are Hindus or the properties in dispute are not in territories falling under Sections 57 (a) and (b), sub-section (2) of Section 213 of the Act applies and sub-section (1) has no application. As a consequence, a probate will not be required to be obtained by a Hindu in respect of a will made outside those territories or regarding the immovable properties situate outside those territories.”

The Court also quoted the following from the judgment in Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane & Ors. [AIR 2002 Delhi 6]:

“On interpretation of Section 213 read with Section 57 (a) and (b), the Courts have opined that where the will is made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina and were subject to the Lt. Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of ordinary, original civil jurisdiction of High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay or even made outside but relating to immovable property within the aforesaid territories that embargo contained in Section 213 shall apply. From this it stands concluded that if will is made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina outside Bengal, Madras or Bombay then embargo contained in Section 213 shall not apply. This is what the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the defendants decide. Therefore, there is no problem in arriving at the conclusion that if the will is made in Delhi relating to immovable property in Delhi by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, no probate is required.”

The judgment was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Probate or a letter of administration is not mandatory for wills made in Delhi by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains, if the property is also in Delhi.
• Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply to wills made in Delhi in such cases.
• This clarifies the legal position in Delhi, aligning with the consistent view of High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The judgment has clarified that the requirement of probate under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply to wills made in Delhi when the property and parties are also in Delhi. This decision will likely reduce the burden on litigants in Delhi by avoiding the need for probate in such cases. This will also impact future cases involving similar issues by providing a clear precedent for the applicability of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in Delhi.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not apply to wills made in Delhi when the property and parties are also in Delhi, as Delhi was not part of the territories of Bengal, Madras, or Bombay at the relevant time. This case reinforces the existing legal position and does not change the previous positions of law, but rather clarifies its applicability in the context of Delhi.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Delhi High Court’s decision that probate or a letter of administration is not required for wills made in Delhi when the property and parties are also in Delhi. This judgment clarifies the applicability of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in Delhi, providing much-needed clarity for future cases.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Succession Act, 1925

Child Categories:

• Section 213, Indian Succession Act, 1925
• Section 57, Indian Succession Act, 1925
• Probate
• Letter of Administration
• Wills
• Delhi

FAQ

Q: Does this judgment mean that I don’t need probate for any will in Delhi?

A: No, this judgment applies specifically to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains in Delhi, where the property is also located in Delhi. If the will or property is outside of Delhi, the rules might be different.

Q: What is a probate?

A: Probate is the legal process of proving the validity of a will in a court of law. It is required to ensure that the will is genuine and that the executor has the authority to administer the estate.

Q: What is a letter of administration?

A: A letter of administration is a legal document issued by a court that authorizes a person to manage the estate of someone who died without a valid will.

Q: What if I am not a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Jain? Does this judgment apply to me?

A: This judgment specifically addresses wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains. For other religions, the rules may vary, and it is advisable to seek legal advice.

Q: What should I do if I have a will in Delhi?

A: If you have a will in Delhi, it is best to consult with a lawyer to determine if probate or a letter of administration is required based on your specific circumstances. This judgment provides guidance, but individual situations may vary.