Supreme Court Revokes Probate Granted Without Proper Citation: Manju Puri vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 14 November 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1028

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can a probate granted by a court be revoked if it was done without informing all the legal heirs of the deceased? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a probate was granted based on a no-objection certificate that was later alleged to be forged. This case highlights the importance of due process in testamentary matters and the rights of legal heirs. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Kolkata, originally purchased by Surjan Singh Randhawa and his brother Bachittar Singh Randhawa in the names of their wives, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt. Celia Mary Randhawa, respectively. Surjan Singh Randhawa had two daughters, Smt. Gian Hanspal and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra. On 15 June 1961, Surjan Singh Randhawa made a will, bequeathing the property to his elder daughter, Smt. Gian Hanspal. Surjan Singh Randhawa passed away on 28 November 1962.

Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa executed a registered gift deed on 25 March 1964, transferring her share of the property to Smt. Gian Hanspal. After Surjan Singh Randhawa’s death, his brother, Bachittar Singh Randhawa, filed a probate petition in the Calcutta High Court, seeking to validate the will of 15 June 1961. Along with the petition, no-objection certificates from Smt. Gian Hanspal, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa, and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra were attached. The Calcutta High Court granted the probate on 4 June 1982, in favor of Bachittar Singh Randhawa.

In April 1984, Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra filed a suit against Smt. Gian Hanspal for partition of the property, claiming her share after the death of her mother, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa. Smt. Gian Hanspal opposed this claim, citing the gift deed of 1964. Smt. Gian Hanspal died during the pendency of the suit on 24 February 1988, and her heirs were substituted. The suit was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for its restoration also failed. On 28 June 2010, the heirs of Smt. Gian Hanspal sold the property to Rungta Mines Limited. The appellant, daughter of Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra, came to know about the probate through the conveyance deed and filed an application for revocation of the probate on 05 June 1982.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the revocation or annulment of a grant of probate or letters of administration for just cause. Illustration (ii) of this section states that a grant can be revoked if it was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited. The section states:

  “263. Revocation or annulment for just cause.-The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation. – ……… ……… ……… Illustrations (i) ……… ……… ……… (ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited. (iii) The will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked. ……… ……… ………”

• Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the powers of a District Judge in probate matters, including the power to issue citations to interested parties. Specifically, Section 283(1)(c) allows the District Judge to issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. The section states:

  “283. Powers of District Judge .-(1) In all cases the District Judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks proper, — (a)examine the petitioner in person, upon oath; (b)require further evidence of the due execution of the will or the right of the petitioner to the letters of administration, as the case may be; (c)issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. (2) The citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the court -house, and also in the office of the Collector of the district and otherwise published or made known in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct. (3) Where any portion of the assets has been stated by the petitioner to be situate within the jurisdiction of a District Judge in another State, the District Judge issuing the same shall cause a copy of the citation to be sent to such other District Judge, who shall publish the same in the same manner as if it were a citation issued by himself, and shall certify such publication to the District Judge who issued the citation.”

• Chapter XXXV of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914: These rules govern testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. Rule 5A mandates that applications for probate or letters of administration must state the names of family members who would inherit in case of intestacy. Rule 9 deals with citations for letters of administration, requiring them to be issued to all persons with a prior or equal right to the grant, unless they have consented. Rule 12 provides directions for citations to show cause. The relevant rules are:

  “5A. In all applications for probate or for letters of administration with the will annexed the petition shall state the names of the members of the family or other relatives upon whom the estate would have devolved in case of an intestacy together with their present place of residence. 9. Citation to rightful parties. – On an application for letters of administration, unless otherwise ordered, a citation shall issue to all persons having a right to take the grant prior or equal to that of the applicant, unless such persons have signified their consent to the application. 12. Direction in citation to show cause on a certain day. – All citations shall, unless otherwise ordered, direct the persons cited to show cause on the fourth day from the day of service where the parties to be cited reside within the town of Calcutta, or on such day certain as the Judge shall direct where they reside outside Calcutta; and, where they cannot be served in the manner provided for service of process, may be served by the insertion as an advertisement in such local newspapers as may be directed, of a Notice in Form No. 5. ”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Manju Puri):

• The probate was granted on 04 June 1982, within a week of filing the application, without issuing any citation to the appellant’s mother, Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra, a legal heir of Surjan Singh Randhawa.
• The no-objection certificate purportedly signed by Smt. Beena Kumari was a forgery. She used to sign as “Beena Kumari Mehra,” not “Beena Mehra,” as shown in the certificate.
• Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra filed a suit for partition in April 1984, which indicates that she was not aware of the probate proceedings. The written statement filed by Smt. Gian Hanspal in that suit did not mention the probate, further indicating that Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra did not consent to the probate.
• The application for revocation was filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on the grounds of fraud and lack of proper notice.
• The High Court Rules contemplate the issuance of citations, which were not followed in this case.

Respondents’ Arguments (Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Ors.):

• Issuance of a citation is not mandatory for granting probate. Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 uses the word ‘may,’ indicating it is discretionary for the District Judge.
• Rule 9 of Chapter 35 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914, contemplates citations for letters of administration, not probate, unless the person has signified consent, which Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra had done.
• The probate proceedings were initiated by Bachittar Singh Randhawa, brother of the deceased.
• The suit for partition filed by Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra was dismissed for non-prosecution, indicating that she did not want to pursue the matter.
• The application for revocation was filed after 30 years of the grant, and both Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra and Smt. Gian Hanspal are deceased.
• Respondent No. 4 is a bona fide purchaser who bought the property based on the probate.

Respondent No. 4’s Arguments (Rungta Mines Limited):

• Respondent No. 4 is a bona fide purchaser for value and should not suffer due to disputes between the appellant and other respondents.
• Revocation of probate should not affect the rights of respondent No. 4.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether sufficient grounds were made out in the application for revocation of probate filed by the appellant, and whether the High Court committed an error in rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal.

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:

• Jyotsana Rajgarhia vs. Dipak Kumar Himatsingka, (2002) ILR 2 Cal 402, High Court of Calcutta: This case was cited to support the view that Rule 9 of the High Court Rules, Chapter XXXV, is applicable only in cases of letters of administration and not to the grant of probate.
• Kamona Soondury Dassee v. Hurro Lall Shaha, (1882) ILR 8 Cal 570, High Court of Calcutta: This case was cited to emphasize that the discretion to issue citations should be exercised with proper care, especially when a will alters the devolution of property.
• Shyama Charan Baisya vs. Prafull Sundari Gupta, AIR 1916 Cal 623, High Court of Calcutta: This case was cited to reiterate that when a will alters the devolution of property, the District Judge should direct special citations to those whose rights are affected.
• Harimati Debi and another vs. Anath Nath Roy Choudhury, AIR 1939 Cal 535, High Court of Calcutta: This case was cited to highlight that when an unregistered will is propounded after a long delay, all doubts and suspicions must be removed.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Used to justify the revocation of probate due to lack of proper citation.
• Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Discussed in relation to the discretionary powers of the District Judge to issue citations.
• Chapter XXXV of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914: Interpreted to determine the applicability of citation rules to probate and letters of administration.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Jyotsana Rajgarhia vs. Dipak Kumar Himatsingka, (2002) ILR 2 Cal 402*: The Court followed this authority to establish that Rule 9 of Chapter XXXV of the High Court Rules applies only to letters of administration and not probate.
• Kamona Soondury Dassee v. Hurro Lall Shaha, (1882) ILR 8 Cal 570*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the need for careful exercise of discretion when issuing citations.
• Shyama Charan Baisya vs. Prafull Sundari Gupta, AIR 1916 Cal 623*: The Court followed this authority to highlight the need for special citations when a will alters property devolution.
• Harimati Debi and another vs. Anath Nath Roy Choudhury, AIR 1939 Cal 535*: The Court followed this authority to show that when an unregistered will is propounded after a long delay, all doubts must be cleared.
• Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925*: The Court applied this provision as the basis for revoking the probate due to lack of proper citation.
• Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925*: The Court interpreted this provision to determine the discretionary powers of the District Judge regarding citations and emphasized that the discretion should be exercised judiciously.
• Chapter XXXV of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914*: The Court interpreted these rules to determine the applicability of citation rules to probate and letters of administration.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in rejecting the application for revocation. The Court noted that the probate was granted without issuing a citation to Smt. Beena Mehra, a legal heir, and that the no-objection certificate was doubtful. The Court emphasized that while Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, grants discretion to the District Judge to issue citations, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, especially when a will alters the devolution of property. The Court also found that the High Court had wrongly concluded that there was an inordinate delay in filing the revocation application.

The Court observed that the filing of a partition suit by Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra in 1984, without any mention of the probate, further cast doubt on her alleged consent. The Court also noted that the written statement filed by Smt. Gian Hanspal in the partition suit did not mention the probate, which raised questions about the validity of the proceedings. The Court stated that the High Court should have been more cautious when dealing with a will that was sought to be probated 20 years after its execution.

The Supreme Court concluded that the probate granted on 04 June 1982, should be revoked and the probate proceedings should be revived before the learned Single Judge. The Court also stated that the contentions raised by respondent No. 4, the purchaser of the property, would be considered in the revived proceedings.

“We, thus, conclude that even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant.”

“The conduct of Smt.Beena Kumari Mehra in filing suit in 1984 claiming partition and no reference of probate in the said proceedings clearly indicates that Smt.Beena Kumari Mehra was not even aware of the probate proceedings when the suit was filed.”

“We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge erred in not issuing any citation to Smt. Beena Mehra in the probate proceedings and without any verification of genuineness of no objection certificates mechanically granted probate which was unsustainable.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Doubtful Consent: The Court was not convinced that Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra had genuinely consented to the probate. The fact that she filed a partition suit without mentioning the probate and the discrepancy in her signature raised serious doubts about the no-objection certificate.
• Lack of Citation: The Court emphasized that the High Court should have issued a citation to Smt. Beena Mehra, given that she was a legal heir who was being disinherited by the will. The Court noted that while the District Judge has discretion under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, this discretion should be exercised judiciously.
• Delay in Probate: The Court noted that the will was sought to be probated 20 years after its execution, which should have made the High Court more cautious.
• Procedural Irregularities: The Court found that the High Court had not followed the proper procedure in granting the probate, especially regarding the issuance of citations.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways:

• Importance of Citation: This judgment reinforces the importance of issuing citations to all legal heirs in probate proceedings, especially when a will alters the natural course of inheritance.
• Judicious Exercise of Discretion: The court emphasized that while District Judges have discretion to issue citations, this discretion should be exercised judiciously and with proper care.
• Scrutiny of No-Objection Certificates: Courts should thoroughly scrutinize no-objection certificates, especially when there are doubts about their genuineness.
• Timely Action: The judgment highlights that delay in filing a revocation application should not be a bar if the applicant was not aware of the proceedings.
• Protection of Legal Heirs: The judgment underscores the importance of protecting the rights of legal heirs, particularly those who are being disinherited by a will.

Directions:

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The probate granted on 04 June 1982, was revoked.
• The probate proceedings in PLA No.90 of 1982 were revived before the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
• The High Court was requested to expeditiously dispose of the proceedings.