Supreme Court Upholds Probate Grant: Revocation Plea Dismissed in Lynette Fernandes vs. Gertie Mathias (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 08, 2017

Citation: [Not Available in the source]

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a probate granted by a court be challenged after a long delay based on claims of procedural irregularities and fraud? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over a will and its probate. The Court examined whether the High Court was right in dismissing a plea to revoke a probate grant made 36 years prior. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between Mrs. Lynette Fernandes (the appellant) and her mother, Mrs. Gertie Mathias (the original respondent, now deceased and represented by her legal heirs). Mrs. Fernandes is one of three daughters of Mr. Richard P. Mathias and Mrs. Gertie Mathias. Mr. Richard P. Mathias passed away on November 5, 1959, leaving behind a will dated August 11, 1959, which bequeathed all his assets to his wife, Mrs. Gertie Mathias. Mrs. Gertie Mathias obtained a probate for this will on September 9, 1960. At that time, all three daughters were minors. Mrs. Lynette Fernandes attained majority on September 9, 1965. She filed a suit for partition on July 6, 1995, claiming a 1/4th share of the properties mentioned in her father’s will. Subsequently, on January 25, 1996, Mrs. Fernandes filed an application to revoke the probate granted to her mother in 1960, citing procedural defects and fraud.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The District Court dismissed Mrs. Fernandes’s application for revocation of probate on both merits and grounds of limitation. The High Court of Karnataka upheld the District Court’s decision, leading Mrs. Fernandes to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, which deals with the revocation or annulment of probate grants for just cause. 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. —Just cause shall be deemed to exist where— (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.”

The Supreme Court also considered Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for applications where no specific period is provided.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The citation for the probate should have been issued in Chikmagalur, where the testator’s immovable property was located, not just in Mangalore.
• ✓ The application for probate did not include the names of the appellant and her siblings as respondents.
• ✓ The probate was obtained fraudulently by Mrs. Mathias.
• ✓ The probate was granted in ‘common form’ and not in ‘solemn form’ and thus, it is open to challenge such a grant of probate.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• ✓ The application for revocation was filed after a long delay of 36 years.
• ✓ There was no evidence of fraud presented by the appellant.
• ✓ Since Mrs. Mathias was the sole beneficiary under the will, there was no need to include her minor children as respondents in the probate application.
• ✓ The parties resided in Mangalore, so no prejudice was caused by not issuing a citation in Chikmagalur.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the non-issuance of citation at Chikmagalur constitutes a substantial defect in the probate proceedings under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
2. Whether the probate was obtained fraudulently by Mrs. Mathias.
3. Whether the application for revocation of probate was barred by limitation.

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Anil Behari Ghoshe v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi & Others, AIR 1955 SC 566:* The Supreme Court followed this authority to reiterate that the discretion to revoke a grant must be based on a defect that substantially affects the proceedings.
• Mt. Sheopati Kuer v. Ramakant Dikshit and Ors., AIR 1947 Patna 434:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that while citation to interested parties is important, it is not an absolute right if the natural guardian has represented the minor’s interest.
• Dwijendra Nath Sarma Purkayastha v. Golok Nath Sarma Purkayastha, AIR 1915 Calcutta 393:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that in the present case, the appellant was not a minor at the time of probate.
• Walter Rebells v. Maria Rebells, 2 CWN 100:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that in the present case, the appellant was not a minor at the time of probate.
• Haimati Bati Mitra v. Kunja Mohan Das, 35 CWN 387:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that in the present case, the appellant was not a minor at the time of probate.
• Sachindra Narain Sah v. Hironmoyee Dasi, 24 CWN 538:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that it dealt with consent of guardian, not necessity of appointing one.
• Southern Bank Ltd. v. Kesardeo Ganeriwalla, AIR 1958 Cal 377:* The Supreme Court relied on this case to clarify that there is no concept of common form probate in India.
• Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1997 SC 282:* The Supreme Court relied on this case to hold that Article 137 applies to all applications under any Act, including the Indian Succession Act.
• Krishna Kumar Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, (2009) 11 SCC 537:* The Supreme Court reiterated the dictum of Kerala State Electricity Board case.
• B. Manjunath Prabhu & Others v. C. G. Srinivas & Others, AIR 2005 Kant 136:* The Supreme Court rejected this view, stating that the Supreme Court has held that Article 137 applies to all applications.
• S. Krishnaswamy v. E. Devarajan, AIR 1991 Mad 214:* The Supreme Court rejected this view, stating that the Supreme Court has held that Article 137 applies to all applications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ Delay: The appellant’s 36-year delay in challenging the probate was a significant factor.
• ✓ Lack of Evidence: The appellant failed to provide any evidence of fraud or undue influence.
• ✓ No Prejudice: The Court found that the appellant was not prejudiced by the non-issuance of citation in Chikmagalur.
• ✓ Sole Beneficiary: Mrs. Mathias was the sole beneficiary under the will, and the will itself was not challenged.
• ✓ Applicability of Limitation Act: The court was influenced by the fact that the application was barred by limitation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily based on legal principles, particularly the application of the Limitation Act and the interpretation of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. While factual aspects like the delay and lack of evidence were considered, the legal framework played a more significant role in the final decision.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the defect must be of such a character as to substantially affect the regularity and correctness of the previous proceedings. The court observed that “Defective in substance must mean that defect was of such a character as to substantially affect the regularity and correctness of the previous proceedings.” The Court also noted that the appellant had kept quiet for 36 years, indicating a lack of interest in opposing the grant of probate. The Court held that “The very fact that the appellant kept quiet for 36 long years would clearly reveal that she was not interested in filing a caveat or in opposing grant of probate.” The Court also emphasized that the probate was granted after due application of mind by the Court, and that “since the evidence of Mrs. Mathias was recorded at the time of grant of probate by the competent Court of law, it is clear that the probate was granted in favour of Mrs. Mathias after publishing Citation at Mangalore and after due application of mind by the Court. Hence it was solemn form only.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Probate grants are considered judgments in rem and are valid against the world.
• ✓ Challenges to probate grants must be made within the limitation period specified under the Limitation Act.
• ✓ Allegations of fraud must be supported by specific evidence.
• ✓ Procedural irregularities alone may not be sufficient to revoke a probate grant unless they substantially affect the proceedings.
• ✓ Delay in challenging a probate grant can be a significant factor against the challenger.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an application for revocation of probate is subject to the limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that probate proceedings are subject to the same rules of limitation as other civil proceedings, and that delays in challenging probate grants can be fatal to the challenger’s case. The Court also clarified that mere procedural irregularities are not sufficient to revoke a probate grant, unless they substantially affect the proceedings. This judgment also clarifies that there is no concept of common form probate in India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court ruled that the appellant’s application for revocation of probate was barred by limitation and that there was no just cause for revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. The Court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to probate grants and the need for specific evidence to support allegations of fraud.