Elizabeth Connolly vs Mrs. Cheryl Margurite Soggee on 14 October, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Elizabeth Connolly vs Mrs. Cheryl Margurite Soggee on 14 October, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

.. H   _-- ' '(By SifTTi.PadmBnabha Mahale,
 vTS'Br'iP.T..P.Rajendra Kumar Sunga-y, Advocate)

 

IN THE HfGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANOA:;O"RP}:  

DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OI?.QCTO}313'}?"9§'£}{1V9x"   

BBPORE; A

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEQBNAND BY*R2XRE§_5D'Y

PROBATE CIVIL PETIfEi"O:N;;NO:8. OPT 999 PROBATE CIVIL-.PETI1FIO§{_.N--O;'lOOF I999 AND PROBATE CIVIL:PB'TT1"_!ONTN&;gﬂOP 1990 PROBATE C1v;1;9PE3iffmOiggis Mrs.E1_izabeth COBB-O'I1.3<O»(Nee"Faithful) Wife Of Phei'im C<)_ni1_.O'}1yV,' " --- " * Aged about 3/.ears.._ ' _ "

Residing at__L2i Ville Jam-5649(), Guiv_!iier.s:,__A£7?r2V;nce, _____ " B VRepf'esef1ted_b*3§_her Power Of Attorney Holdex husband Phelim Cennolly, La '\LZ.i11e";¥zi112,,_56"{i'9'O, Guilliers, Fraﬁce.

Senior I " " Mrs:.Che-ryl Margurite Soggee, Wife Of Robert Chales Sogge, Represented by her G.P.A.I~iOlder Z PETI TION ER Counsei and :f!;5u§é»' :~=Hs«9swﬁ.

7:39. B; é»¥£wiyf£- BB1

ix) Major P.T.La2.21rus (Retinzd) 306, Cross, 7"' Main, IV Block, _K0ramanga1a, Bangaia0re--56O O34.

Rev.M0ther Provincial, _ Little Sisters of the P()()i",, "'~V..V_ 15, Hosur Road, % Bangaiore--560 025, Rex/.M0ther Superiof,' ' Missionarigis of Cha-;7ivty;w V 3, Ash()kaR_()ad, I Banga1d:e--§6{)._._(JG.'5'.« _ Mc)therv~.Su'pfe.:ﬁi_0;', s:;%M1%cmi1e's C[:o%;;vem,% Old Ma.dr:is~R-rj:;1d, » % J ecvzm B hi:1ja'12.§iga;*;' -. " * Ban§a..14c51'c,--56() 075.

"3'.:Piff3xSi(i§3Ht, ..... 14 v V Chfist1ﬁ'~Scva Samaj, " k .(Ana11ti1a';_/ashram.) R'eﬁig¢ fdfrvvﬁestiiutes, V "%Opp(jSifc'JSt..Xavie1":5 Boys' HighSch001., Shvivyrajﬁagar, Bz1Vr}gal()re--56O ()0! .

V .:P1fesbyter»~in--c:harge, St.MarI<'s Cathedral, N0. .1, St.Mark's Road, _B2m galore.

Bangalore CheSh1'.re Home, 9:» Bangalore -- 560 005 Mother Superior, St.MichaIe's Convem, Ofd Madras Road, Jeevan Bhimanagar, B2mga1ore--56O 075 President, Christu Seva Sa1n2ij;».A_ (Anantha A.s;h1~am)"* ' Refuge for Destitutesj .

shiva;inaga::;e e . .

B21ng;1f():*er_56.€}--':QOJ ._ .

Opposite SeX;1vie§:*'VéV'B'<)jQs'. H~igh_ Seheel, . Presb i'n--e1:1a'reg_e'§ ' I S't_5Maa'k Cé1:'thed1fa'l;--e.__: = ' ' N0'.«f_. St.Ma..r_k"s'i30ad_, Ba11g:Va!_;)1'eee .

_" ' 'galore' Home, ._ 6""Mile';,HAL Airport Road.

- " = ga11:;.:¢~5§<) 017 ' A V The_ Pfefgidnent, Bangahire Childem' S Society.

63,,v__R.ich1nond Road, " _Bar1ga101'e ~ 560 025 MResp0ndent.N0.7 defeted vide order Dated 2I.1().2()O3 on memo.

. Director, Kjdwai Memorial I.nsti.tute 0fOne0l0gy, S I4.

who had died intestate. This circumstance according to Shri Mahle is a just cause for revocation of the grant of probate in terms of section 263 of the Act as the proceedings to the grant were defective in substance. It is further corrt§'end'ekii'---that~_the grant of probate having been made on »_l6.6..1989--.:}% the bequests' under the will was a void bequest u:n.det:'_"se{:tio'n_ _l*;h8 ol'::tiiel'l'Act. And not withstanding the subsequent repea.I the grant of probate in respect of al--voi.d--.wl~l.lA wotiildvrender the same valid vfliichIxinnotnliibe couhtenzzncetl and therefore the grant of l.3robate be V1'e~vo1<e:-(ll A' 1 i '"~ .. ft}rtl1er"t:«onte.:v1ded that the will is suspicious and 21 got up tiec_ur,r1lerit'.this is apparent from the fact that at one place in the .will a_ made in favour of a servant states that it would lﬁtaiie effect after the death of herself and her husband, when her "hursba"nd was already dead and therefore renders it a suspicious .. .,(;1.(§ctiment.

Reliance is sought to be placed on the following authorities: 8

re' vague aliegation is made of the will being suspicious and a got--up document at the time of finai hearing, no such ground israised or substantiated in the petitions. The primary ground for' reli/ocgttion of the grant of probate is to estabiish that the wit} geniuine and valid -- in the absence of such a chztilenge, ithe're'is no'bas§,s for the petition. Further, the beques;-t__.beiiig.hit by of the w Act cannot be the ground for revoc'at,iioeuof the wiiii. The scope of P_robate proceedings is "resti'Aicted{_p'to*theAA"consideration of the genuineneiss "of.the vﬁii, itisaifaiid executioii and the competence of the egxeciutorto be pmbzite. The question of titie to the propesrty or eiicti it's'i'veri;-_t existence are not the subject matter of itenqiij'i.ry.i*iiSo" aiso the competence or otherwise of a testator to 't3e§q:1.esti.i'would re main outside the scope of the proceedings and nota 'vg1"()ui1d for revocation of probate.

2 " 4_ 8. "I.nsofa1' non--citation of the petitioner who is said to be * iiiece of the testatrix -w reliance is piaced on a decision of the i Supreme Court in Am] Beizari G/ms/1 vs'. I.nrika Bola Dcz5si_. AIR 17 1955 SC 566, wherein it is held that the omission to issue citation to persons who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may well be in a normal case a ground by.p'i'Ls,e1f for revocation of the grant. But this is not an .abs'o1;_iteljgright irrespective of other considerations arising froI31,tlr~e. proved facts of a case. The court may refuse to grant aniiuihioentppiin. where there is no likelihood of pro.o'f-._being"offered admitted to probate was either notigevnuine or'ha.dl not been validly executed.' lit _ii's..:praye.dV"that the petitions in Prob.CP 8/1999 and l13'--rob.'(Z_Pill.ijVO»/lit' 999 be dismissed. 199.0, there is no representation by Counsel. 'Hie' petitio'ner. iemiming in the capacity of the presbyterwin-charge o.fV.Slt;lPau.l.s"ifathedrzil claims as a residuary legatee and alleges gsuspicioniof the Executrix's motives and seeks her removal. In the above circumstances, the questions to be polnsidered is whether the petitioner in Prob.CP 8/1999 and Z 18 Prob.CP i0/1999 has made out a case for revocation of probate and rernovai of the E€x.eeut1'ix on the grounds urged. Firstly, it is to be noted that there is no either of the petitions questioning the»~genuineness'oi' L. i the Valid execution of the same. its then requires to "'.;3:'"e._.vsee_r1 whether any of the cireumstances.._:i'eferretl to of the Act are present. We may ~'..1_sefulAl')ii/ite':i.tr'ne'te's_eetioniZ63'(b) for ready reference.

-.;:1;rmttl'ine11t for just cause.-- The grant . *Ql'gP1'(iha!§i o1'..l.etter.s administration Ina)' be revoked or . ai1'null'e§l& i'oriiusit'e2tuse.

W lust cause shall be deemed to exist where --

V (a). .thei--.V.prc)eeedings to obtain the grant were defective in

7..substance: or V A 4' (ii) the grant was obtained frauduiently by making a false suggestion. or by concealing from the Court something material to the ease; or (C) the grant was obtainecl by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify Z the grant, though such allegation was made1 1'n 19 ignorance or inadvertently: or

(ii) the grant has becomes useless and inoperative th.rtiu§jhi CiI'CUfI1Sl£1I1CCS; O1"

(6)

and without reasonabie c.ause1_orn.i_ttec1 toj3xih;ib'it an' the person to whom the grant was jnrade wil1f'ttIiv f inventory or accotint'--_V_i"iwn_ acc'or'(:1ancewti'ie provisions of chapter V1'i'___ot'-.thi:--;.._Part, or has exhibited under that Cha'pter. an .'inve,t1tery'r.or«.account which is untrue in a material -respecti;

(i) V Il!ta.s:1;~(trtz,{n;si ' Tiie (:'?_(:V)i_I'{"i by' which grantwwas made had no ._ -jui9is«'£1je.t:i'on. ' my 'jt1t.;%'t;_, (Vi ) V "The grant' '--wa's.___i.|i:«a'dc without citing parties who L"otlgitt.to'V--.have Been cited.

The "\2vi1]_(_)f¢ which probate was obtained was forged _oi».,tfevo keel.

AfoE).tained ietters of adrninistration to the estate of . his widow, but it has since transpired that she was never married to him.

A has taken admi.nistration to the estate of B as if he had died intestate, but a wii! has since been discovered.

Since probate was granted, a later wiii has been é discovered.

El}

(vii) Since probate was. granted, at eodieil has been discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment of executors under the will. .

(viii) The person to whom. probate was, 01' adminisEmti()n were, granted has become of unsound mind."v b

10. From a reading of Explzination g;1;iuvse~ (a)"~.p2i'r1d illustration (ii), it may be tl'1l€E'tr[ll»!€ expmslstioii "defective in Substance" would incltide'"omis'éioVn:toissue citations to persons who shoulld 'harfgte :éi'pp."risedl'_lofi"the probate proceedings, but as held the S¥.l§l;€!.fl6-_"CQll1*l'll? Am"! Behari Glm.sl1'.s' case supra, the court r.et'use"t()."-grétnt annulment in cases where there is V""lilketliitholod of prL5{5r9 being offered that the will admitted to A '--p1't>.b21te~Wfe:s"eitlier not genuine or had not been validly executed. I_n_;'s'o£'3r"l the challenge. to the grant of probate on the l ._xgAr(>und of the bequest being 21 void bequest under section 118 of thedfkct is concerned, the said section stands repealed. The V' ""c"onte.tition that the Section ought to be held to apply in View of the G order of grant of probate was Inside when the section was on the statute book by applying the doctrine of prospective ov~e_r'r1_ili~ng w is a proposition put forth by the Senior Advocate wiiich:

to comprehend. In the opinion of.tAhis_cou_irt,ivithei,'doictrine"._of i prospective overruling has no 21ppli'c.;1tionl' in c'ircumstan:c'c.si"as above and such an argument is Section _"§;l8';isMno longer relevant.

Insofar the clainJ"(')'f"th:e pet.i.i'ior_1_er one--half share of the pi'opertres left i"oehind.Vby.4VM.r:Fait*l"1t'ul is concerned w the title of Mr. or Mrs. ._Faithful':and«_tihe,_e:<tent of share which Mrs.Fati_hfu1 was compe'tent to deal.withfand the share if any of the petitioner CaI1n01'}3f:_ the su-hjectmzitter of these proceedings. This question i' no..1lon.ger" intelgr2i}"lTiie settled legal position is evident from V' the £:>s11pwi'ng 'decisio-ns.

IS??tt?C£Fde() A-;?x.*mi;»;r szngrz vs. Karma I)evi, AIR 1954 SC 280 wherein is-held that W ".'Nz_.-/2' C our: of Prolacme is r.)rIt'y cc)nccr:1ed with the V' _ .'"'.C]H€SI'l'{)H (Its to vvlzcﬁzlzer the c!0r."zm2c3rzI' put forward as 3 73'?

.41..

the l.c'1.s'I wih' and tr<s"I(z1'¢2e1':t of a cfe('ea._s'ed p.r3r.s'()rz wc1.s',.___ c1m'_y za.x'ec'z.ztec! arm! (lII£.'SIed in (zccor'clam"e wit/7 urza.' wfzeflmr (11 the time Qf'.m(.'h (execution rile Ief§'?L:'ti/,é{"~ » u had .s'0Lmd cl1'.s'p05z'rzg mind. The que.s'z1'0n M,'l2'és']:ﬁc%I'::cI'. pc:F;'f('Li{('H' i)eqzw..s'I is good or Ind' 375;. nor'! L»v1';vi?iifzV:. v A pm'1.-dewQfthe Pr()/Date Courr. "

Mrs. Hem N0iim' Jada/'I vs. Ii/i'Jf,s*."!,5f()l}=r1é' Sqmjbas/iiifii'"B:);§e', AIR'? 1962 SC 147] It was held that _q_L1:e.:;.tVi(;.irV,;_.Vs :b0f'"'~tif1eV..'jvafe not decided in pr0ceed.ing.s' f(iVrV'utE'ie.. gr21»r'1'1*.cVT0'i' «.p'1'0'ba,te or letters of administration whatever f'E1eref()re.1n.igh€__".§121ve happened in those proceedings A_ w<3§;:'15i;1 rid: evstztbiiish..Eh_c«Lit1e. Where on an application for letters V' of éidminiS'tr§Itip'i1 .'""' ii 0_ffiI.!'e are not' dec'ic!e(1 in ,r)r0ceedi:1g¢' fbr gfzviiy gfdrwi of probczfra or [slicers of ac1m.imf_s'Iration. Wi2dtev(ar' there: 'are Jnziglar hcwe h.a;)pened in fhcﬁe :5pr0c'eeding.s* would not esrablrlwz. the Iizle. Where an an c.1pp!r'crcmTon for letters of cu!mimIs*trczIi0n c:-errain [)i'L'.[l|ITtI'I1(If'_',-' 1Zs's'L1e.s' were__f'rc1mec1 one of wr"ziz:i1 relafed I0 €.s't()ppe[ wt'!/'1 !"€.S'[)(*.'(.'f to {face r)pp0.s'iIe ,rJc'zr'I__v'.5' righr to (1 pmp(.*r't_\-' and the applic.'c.zti()rz was' 0bvic)z.:..s'!}-' c1'i.s*rn1Zs'.s'e(1 5 2.3 under 0. .27 R2 Civt'l RC. _)'m' the t'€u.S'()tI that the ctpplic,-a:«zt did not appear no qtte_s'tt'0rz of re.s'judt'cc1tc1 ax to the title to that pr0pert}-'- can (ti"l_S'e agczimt the ttppliectttt by reczsrm 0_/'that: (ll.S't7'll.S'.S'(tl. "

Chiranji1alShrtlctl Goenkct vs. Jczsjit Singh, (1993 _It was held following the dictum in Ishwardeo Zsf céiset, "l5. In Ishwctrdeo Narain. Sittgh vs'. >-._Shlzt. K;ztt:t'ctDe-'xi H this Court held that the Court lOf:;?t"()l?ClI€ 'lS'Albiflly l' ermeemed with the qtte.s'fit5'tz.V a..s' 'Vic; whether'"._the §l()'t'ttt'1;ehtiiptttlflea?';»uct't":la2t's' tlte.lct';s'tVlwill and testament of ct._Acle(~>ec2.S'.elclu;:ie'tt5€t)tt lvlVt?'ct,:§'."a'1tlty' executed and attested in c1c?e(tt{tlcmc'e 've,>ttlt.'..lu1t1t: Jlwhether at the time of such A. ~e.Xec'tttt'lt}rI.,tlt.etveXI(tf()tt..ll't(tcl sotmd dz'sp0sing mind. The ".:":.qE;>"%'€V:45vl':'()'FEl wl1etl1e~:*-uh pa.rt1'eu[ar bequext is" good or bad z'.e'._v t'2.()l".._"W.i'l_\l"'ll'}? the [)Lit'vl€W of the probate cozm'. only i.¥.sue in a probate proceedings }"({l(tf('_.$::3"(tVflI.€ getmirzenesxv cmcl clue execfutt'('m of the will cshrzf. the e0m't itself is tender duty to cfetermtne it and . prexerve the ()rt'girtczl will in its c.'z»t5t()dy. The SL£CCe.S'Sl()f1' Act is a .s'elf~c.-ontctined (rode ITrt.s'0_f'at' as the que.s'ti0n 0/'1'nal<t'ng an application. for pmbctte, grant or refimtl ofprohate or an appeal ec1.rried ctgainst the dec.-tIs'i0t1 hf the [))'()l9(jI§' ("()LtFf. Tim' is' clearly mczm.'f'e.s'tecl in .thefa..s'cric't+le Q/'I'I'1e pm\='i.s'-i0n.s' (2f.ff:IK" . A4 The probate prr)c'eec11'r'zg.s' .s'hcu'l be c*()r-1.d1.u:{;2ti'-._h}"iffzen pmbczte c'm.:rI' in the manner pr(fs("i'if:-ecl iii ti1e4uAh(';?'4c1r:iZ£v in no olher way. The gram of ;;)'r;)l);;§ﬁc»A. The will (mnexed esIczb!i.a'he'.*_._$ (.'r:rVz."(,=!:;1.'s":'WI)' 'VVi:.'r:4_V1*:i'ze appoinrmenr offhe exe('L-zI()f"cmk:' the. vc1}~.'i(Z' éxe crutimi (.)f the will . Tims if (i()e.s' '1.<;()" r}?(_:)'.+'.e V"1".'.!'.1_£II1 e_s'rdhA4'i.sur'2V the faen.m2 of the will' ('Ind the;-.Vl.eg&{e/Vfc:h(m;cter of the exec:'m0r. Probatec;---a:.zl'i"<1'()e_g not EYec'ide,"(1h._\,.' question of time {Sr (1_f'f}1'€ e,€€.s'tei!'zc.§'e ()fi'h_é p}*<i);.:>.e.15l}= itseffi '"

Ghulczm 132.;,_SpeeiafhvTr*'ih;;nczlx200.I AIR SC W 4022 :

whe_rei.n it was held . ' ''Th.e.rjeh ;:c:rzh<2t he "c.z1zjé"cli_s*;)L¢ze to the Iegai pr0p0.s'iti0n 'V I:"~E£'ZI the r'gg;}'ii Q]',brr)I'9c;<Ie e.m':fJli.s'fze.s' c.'m1e."u.s'ivel_\,' as In Efhe V"c:.p,r)c)irzI:-hehr of the exewior and the valid _ "e..1fec".r4£'z':'rgVr'z"'Qf Ihe will. However, it d(:e.s' not e.s'IahlzLs*h I-zlzici-.u5tf---IlAz'eéI.t'c II'1efa(.'tun1 Q/"me will as probate court does not 'dTec'ric1e quesrim-2 0/" izfile or of [he e_¥i..s'Ie'iuf.'c' Qf the =;.2i'k);)e2't),= menti(mec.l herein "' '7.VV1"3'(zh:c1r"si Dczss mu Teeku mug, ILR 2005 Kar.3270 (SC) -- The V Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of a succession certificate hekd. S Will were j0zTm' cuzciestrcal [)i'()pL'I'If€.S' or (1c"qLu'r_¢%d }.')."()[)(?I'[f(?S (»_'fI]'l('. ms*Ic1Ir)r.

1]. In Ch.irc1rz_jiIc1i Shriiai Goenka 1-' Jnj(;$}1'I is and OM. (1993) 2 SCC b 'wl.Iile_ up/10ld:'ng the abm»c> vziews' crncl 'f'Qll0wi}1g ':f[1eV.__e'a--zf;'_ig:9 ' _ A' cfe(,'isi()rz.s' Of I 111115' C am"! (15 well mi. 6/jfﬁhrher' .5515' C0un's --~ ' in India m.'9.s'ervecl in }2c£rV'¢z_gi;<zp}z .15' :11 pczgé~5I'5_ "wizw:l:-fz runs as Lmder: - V b "In ISl1wc:r(!er.2 Nz.,~m.z'n 'S;'rzjg§I1'V 1:""'S:n':(.K(1rn2'a Devi this' C ouri held that the .C 0:-m 'o_f' '21'()?)fsIé 'f;';':r;'i'i[\4' e'0nc'emed ""1»i}'fI:':,V1.'.Fi?r'c'. qi:3:2;'s'rir§}'2~, a.s' I0 'hi-i>fu>t/16:" Ihe documerzr pm' 'v..'Vf&):'Li'.J;1.="(!'t1§"z']z.k> ._r»'c1u;s'-.'._ W-2'1} (Md Iesfczrrzeni of £1 dec'ea.s'ed pe._rf.s'rm, wits' (i'uI}» ,.e.Tfagrz!re'd and c2Ite.s'Ied in (l€.'€'()l'd(Ii'lC(' win': Yaw cmci' wfieilxér' at the time (3f'.s'uch execuIi()n the 3_._;e_s':c1r()r licicf~~~~~;s'()uncl di_s'pm'ing mind. The q'ues*ti0n w.fi1c'<'4.*./_1'€;'__c'z par'Iic'ular bequesi is good or bad is not "'s:132'£'.f:i1r.fi2€5,(7Lzr'1,*zTc'w Q';"':lz.e probate Comm Ti'2eref0re, the .1)1'Tl_'_}":.~' fA.YSL£-E? in CI ;)r0f7a1€ pmceecling_s' relcn'e.s' In the '~ gr3nL4inme.s:v and clue ce..»cecrurinn. of {he will and flu) H':i()urI' i1'..S'c%[fi.S' zmdcer (Jury I0 d'e?rem1:Trze it and preserve' Ihe r)r1Tgir-16:! will in {Is c.'ar..s'I()ciy. The -SLI:(.'('(£S'XI'()fl Act' is a .s'e[f"cnnlcrined mclc) ir1.s'c3fu,r' as' the que.s'ri(m ofmaking cm Clp])2'f(,fClII'()flf()I" probclre, gram or :'c{fim'c1l Qf"pr()ba2'e or am up,r)(?(1{ carrier] :@1I'12.s"I the (feci,s*i(m of Ike 30 (*irc.'::nn.s'I'anc'r2s' of 11% prmer-II mw. A pfctiiz I'-.'£*E.iPI57I'l';i,'~.(_')f , A' Ilu'.s clccriximw waulc! not .5'l70u-' I/mi cgfrer I}1:¥7.__gr¢'1m. r)f probare lay a mmp€Ic)nt C('>zzi<:,""r'h<+ .\'uiTr 'f'()r' Ii--?:[c) and, [)ermur'1er1t in_jLm(.rt1'0n c'aru&<)t .s*uia."~ 'lo rrzairzfczirm,/Jlc' in law. VW'.v':'-qt 1/'zi;§._C(:a:r-'I :ri1c'z:'f ciecisimz is that am'? c'i"*,é.i'c*f9c4Ie Cl competent Comftg wrwézsitil' c.'()nf:Zi4'.s'--:Tve.vv the vaIz'dz'fj»-= of the WM hm; {fcir:.n_r)t be cfecisive wherher' the p.*'()i2C!v£€ C()L£f'%. y1§.()zﬂt? 'c1I{s':}<§i,'V(!Ec'idc the riﬂe ofihe ii?::{h(3i.§'t;ii;I [?.f'(),'I:).}£?".aT'r-('..$.,,'r@hiC';1, in our view, couii ("i.:}'i!.V.Cr)a:r'f cm evia'enCe. It l1i9i1a'f_'.'tl%2'i!;:A_ [hen:#)f'(;I??(liI£:'--.(?f:I';?(4 Wilf gmmecl 1)); the ('c_r;*.v:;:;.éVI'«;--:".*.:.V1'-«v.._1)';V'r)})::Azg§%"'».C0:.tft would be aa'm:.'tr'ed info '1':V}fiEfra rzc'e't7f.tijs;?-jize. taken. z'm'0 cr()11_s'iden.ztir.)i': by the c.'i1;i":'~V Cvom-ftV "j--..-as/1ir"£.(3 iYc'i't7(1i7Ig {he _s'uiI_f0r rifle bur gram of V __fpr(gi)(:l'e9hi*L.;rI1;_QI.be cle('i.\'ivc for darlcmzltirm offitle and b' 'A.f'.f1".,."~"A4v}'i.'L'..'r:':!'():'l whether at all rhea restazor had any title to A :'ihc5 ',«';)'r'()])8.I"I':"é'.A' or not".

'VVKri.§l'1.'}'icI.z Kg4.ri'ic;r' Birla. vs. Rczjcenclm Singh Lndha, (2(}08)4 SCC j3rj()i '- .

It béen held as foliowsz "5 7. The 1925 Ac! in zhi.s' c(1.\'-(3 ltczs nothing to do with the law ofirzh.€ri1'a.:zce or sLe('c.'ex.\"t'0iz w/ufch is r.)I11er'wi.s'e g()1~*ei"necf by stclrutory laws or the (:'u.s'Ir.)m, as {he cia.s'e 3 32 Ihe ._s'ai(1.' q:.wsIi'o:z in rc%.s'p(J(:I Q/'(my Qfthe item.s said to brelong to NW .s'az'a' (».s'IoI'e.

Mrsjocm Poi vs'.Mrs.Esrne D"Soz.:2:a, 1984(1) Kar.LJ 213 wherein. it has been held that:

"3. Gram of probate (2/" CI i/Vii?" iii' no Qmi_(')re_.Vi. a.crc'epfcm(?e of Ilia? due cxecutirm of 'tl1c?1'_i_iw~é;il [ii'()b'ciz_:éd Vi and that order grcmring prr)£;'(in:%__.c1()e.yi iicireciztra a :2 fczvcmr oft/2e ])€I'S()I't wh.(> has (')F)I.«VC:.IV'I.I2(3C[ it (ind if'£e'--iiLs' riot recjmrecl I0 prove tha'i~..Will m'zz~e ,r,igcziiz_i'r1 czr2J\i*"of}'iei~ pt'r':(.'iéié£!fr:.gf:if,Gi"iii€i:"' 'c3f'x',(2ij:()r"3c1.1ei ii1f'rji;:1.s'V:i1r)i (.'mifer nil:-;» on I/26/'iiiT€I€ffII63f"i'i'<'.f*I7fI't'»,iwfifhlia'-if! 're,s'pec*! of an); of the [)F'()])(;f'FITe{S"'ii'lC'II1(ZéE?iT£-i'I iiiifi-enSeiiecliile ()_f(i.s1s"er_s' requirecl to fz'ler! 5,ilA(_mwiTii'1 ,siii('i1 probate perition. It has to 2,;-:igi'z<ciie(2' iiiiTi2"'"":*:'r(>. proper Civil Court Iicwing ;~,J',££f"iT§fCVI'l"('li.i(.)I'T."(Hid rfze quexiion settled I//zere. "

Sexicér:;'i'ié) I) vs. F elf»: Ambroxe I),S()I/£261, [LR 2003 Karl 94 zz Full Bench of this court while considering the i' e.eoi1'i1-ieting opmions expressed by 3 Division Bench of this court i " with the judgment of the Supreme Court in IShwara'e(_) Narain. Singli. v. Karma [Jew and has held as follows:

Z Lu DJ "The lnclitm Su(k(.'e.s'_s'i0n Act, .1925 inter (zlia cleals with the gm:-It 0fpt"()h(tte.s' cu-Id xtzec'e.s'.s't'oi'z eet'ttf'ie(zte5. Se(itt'0h.-~- 2.13 of the Act provirles that no right as' exe.ettt0t'_.

legatee can be e.s'tctl>li.§'l1ea' in any e0m't 0fJtt.s'tt'ee,__ lihle--t.'.$f' --- V (1 C()L£i"I Q/' ctrtmpetent jttt't'.s'cl1'c'tt'r)t'1 in It-zclia hgz._s_' Qtjtlﬂltfd probate of the will tmcler which the' }Eigt2«r. i.s".L'lat'.me(l,l._()t"

hc1.s* granted probate of the will Lttzclet" V'tlilt':h the figgltt 'ls claimed, or has granted lette.:i§' -Q)"ctcln/tlt'r1Vt'.s'trr1ti0;:tVwiﬂtvtlze will. Section 227 of the A(.'Il'l(;l[flils~ with" of probate and pmw'cle.sj tt':.gzt ;9t'(),l)'(t'teoj"tt Ml! wheh"grczt1ted €SI(ll?llSl1€.S' the will =f'rt)'t:'1 Ttl1e'--t§le;ttt~h l(3ﬁl:ltl<tel =testat0r and I('tI(l€t',S' mlicl all lt'lI€Kt.t'tc*£ll(tt'~(? l£'Ef.A'f;'J oflltvhcalexeetttor. The :z.et-V'-._e__1'fe._('.*' of t'.'*':,<---«v...,§jiia'rl l[}.F:'(lAL'4"."~sjlt')I1-l is that once (I probate is grante;':;l, 4' the ' §:a.t7ne' '-e$5t;2!.h'l'i_s'heX the will re.tm.s'peetively from tlzeflate z)k}V"l'V--tl1e'--._(ieuth of the te.stat0r and ""()lS'IlST the ;§'tf(),_tV)e'tt'_y in the"eXe_ettt»t)r thereofil The grant of the probate pt<r)vlz't:le3.<tl'teV evidence regarding the will from. which the em.,-.;A:;'«.<;,r' de'riv.e.s' his title. Th.ellh..(1tttt'e of the pr0eeeclt'ngs eonclueted by ex Probate V A .'--_.C()LlJ'l dealing with the prcz_verf()r grant off pmbate has lkheert. the sttlajeet matter of numerous jttdtﬂal prtmotmc"emet--zt.s'. In the ease of "ALAGAMMAL vs' V.RADHAMMAL" jtt.s'tic'e Nah-tar Stmcleram ("as his Lom.'..s'hip then was) speaking for the Bench. held that the (l€(.'l.S'l()t'I Qfa Probate Cnmt on the qLi€.S'l'l()tI Qf v(tlz'clit;\:_. S 5-4.) 'LA Once the pmbaic' Com'! rmclmis' in c1'ec.'ixI'(.)i-z..s', Thai will rake [)I'(?c'(%d('J'l(.'c' on I/Ii' releveuzr quc%.s'I'z'm-1.3', over _4f:'*~1.e_V * a.'ecri.s'i('m5' (.)fIhc' (I'0m'I_s' (J]]('()l'CI'If!"i(.If'_'_;' Civil_jz.I2"i;s'(Jic*ri();:"kit '.:é.[':'* -. ' lm-'el.s' and wih' be binding (m pmcceeding per'zcIin;:j'-!?e_ mail Court. Th0.s'e /')rirzc>iple.s' are .3-,~n""we«.'41'kn--mw_x, _1}tl':3 _dc) J not Illink we .s'/10w'd cite cmIh.0rz'Iie.s' f.'r.)r I}:"? eIr::'T' . 1 To the same c{[]"é(:t is the (1.'c)i.;;?.sff'(")';*:V_ in "R {]_K1.'%/[ATNI vs NARENDRA LAL GUPTA" ».t.!;m~e--z-Ire Suweme Cciéur-I held rhat_failure ofcm if1'f~ere.s';'éc! _pef*.»*QI2 fb--.enter caveat to cvrrrexi the ;)r"()(?ee(1i21gx wr)i£1'd pI_Tec>'V[*z4AAc_'..*'u:' 'them firom .r.'()nIc'.s'r:'rzg Ifjtnk' »_\_rc'z!:'d;itA___\-' .*.:';1civ. '-w,z_':.U.' ~ii~;. 'ev€r_1..= other ;)r"(}.;'c1ecfi1a;g,vL V. _V 'V ' < In "1$H"wi4Rp.»5:'o N.AR;:; IN SINGH m KAMTA DEVI"

'ﬂzeivr Lc.2r(lhs'/1i,'j§$".m_I1'z_m:czrived fire .s'c.'()pe of the /)r()c'reedirzg..s' ' 2 , bcefme.i!:v4c§'I?mlJaIe Court in tmfollawirzg w0r'd.s'.' . *--'.!':"zeVC1')':i--.tfrfgfprr)/attic ix Uni)' c'*(mc"c)rned with rhe quexténn 'a.s' t':_2 wf:a5thcer' the docwnenr put forward' as Ike lasl Will (slid.V_(é.s':(m'1€r1t (gf a dec:'ea,s*ec! ;;mr.s'(m was cful}? exec'uted "£11161! artmred in c1c.'c'm'a'c;m"e with I.'c.n-1: cmd w/wther at I116 tirme' (gf'.s*u.:'h e_xecu2'i()n the tc».s*IaIm' had sozmci (1i.s'p0.s'ing rnind. The qum'zic)n w/Let/rm' particular' bequmi is' good or [acid is not within the ;9zg)'1=zTcJz»@'I/16 pr'ol7u!€ Court " 36

To the some e_fj'e.r;".*t is the decrist'orz of the Supreme Court in "Mrs.HEM NOLINI JUD/~1H(SINGH DECEASED} AND AFTER HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MR5'. MARLEAN WILKINSON vs MRs. [SOL AXE SAROJBASHINI BOSE AND OTHERS The declared that the questiott oftitle to the prr);Jert_jﬁ"c1're[hot » decided in proceedt'rtgs for the grant of pro.E;atej_E'c:mId letters ofctdmz'm'stration. The grrtrit' oft? probczte or-I tfetter.s{', of (tdI?'1.fI'IfS!I"aI!'()f1 cieefctrecl the :C()Lii?fI"éII(I rtt)t"~es"t."tI5Iis'Itp if that the person making the-'mill t{»(ts"the ()wtt'({r of the property which he may htt1»e'«gILren awttj';'._I_9_:Vrthe will and that cthy person inte.~rested 131' 'pr-opert_"y .t'm?lttc1e'o.""z'An the will tjfm oI.wcz};=.s5'ft'--!e 'ct o.s'm't_ to .e_.s;r:hlt1s*h his right to the property tothe"exctt-tsiorte'ofthotestcttor in spite of the grant of probate. or lettersof}:-éltttirtistrcttion. The proceedings for probate r)r"I«.e.tter.s".(2'f' aclnzinis-trcztion are not eorteernec! wIitI¢t. t_h.ev,t_itt'e to the property but are only eortcemed with I t'dtte«..exc2eL~:.ttt;n of the will. The followirtg passage is in this I regczhrcireIevcm.t:

"I\f'o;-v it is not in o'z'sput'e that the grant of probate or letters of admim'strott'(_m does not establish that the person making the will was the owner of the property wltieh he rrtczy hctve §iVé'fI awcty b_\.= the wiff, aha' arty person it-zter'ested in the property :'rt(.'l:tded in the will can CtIW(1jp'.S"f.l.I£' ct suit to esto.bIi.s'h his t'igh.t to the property to £5' 37 --

the e..\'c'ius'i(m of the te.s'tator in Spite of the grant of probate or letters ofodmini.s'tr(zti'on to the [egotee or the executor, the reason being that {)r()c'ceedirt;»:.s' for probate or letters of cidmim'.s'trcztion are not concerned with the title to the propertv but are onlv concerned with ;;-t.ue._ executiorz o "the will ( etn[)l1as'i.s' i.S'£/{!)ﬁ)[l.€(f) As' we have alreczdx-' .s'ctid que.s'tr'ort ()f'.ttiI1e}ar'e r1()I"e!eﬁ(£e__c_tf . in ;)r()c'eedin,e.v for the grant o{"--orobczte ()»r.".ifetteri".s* of."

odmimI.s'tratiorz whatever th'e.re}'L0re tnight have. ht:-opherzed in those I)'/()C'(?()dI"lZ(g')A'» would ..'.4£(k-In.(%;S"fi1b[ihyh'I?-iC%_r£[[€V%I() the it()LtS€* either' {the '(i';I[5t:El1at1I-' or of M rs'. M i the r "

h V erJ1pt'tg_zS'i5.-"§S'it,t)[JlrTeci) _ The ctbove ,r).o$-.?'t"t'o'.=.?: iS"~'i'e:'tercttec2' by the Supreme Court in ':'_C'ETtNRt4.2V'J'!l,/~_1_L.v SHRILAL GOENKA vs' JASJIT "3._ it': the _ fol I 0 win g words:

"TheejSurFc.'esst'()n Act is (1 .veif1«c()rztained code in so far as the q'iae.s'ti()t1 ofntctking cm opp.'.icatiort for probatee, grant or "ream-:1 of probate or on appeal (harried against the decisiorz of the probate Court. This is cleori).= manifested in the f'a.s'c'ieu!e of the provi.s*ior2.s' Qfzhe Act. The probate pr'()(.'eecIin.g.s= .s'ha.'.! he eondii('ted by the probate Court in the mormer pr'e3c'I'iheci in the Act and in no other wctyas'. The grant of probate with gc'();;;}: of the will annexed 39 E0. In the light. of the above legal position, there is no ground made out to revoke the grant of probate nor is there any tenable ground made out for removal of the Exeeutrix. The petitions in Prob.CP 8/I999 and Pro'o.CP .10/1999i"afe._di1ence dismissed.

Prob.CP.4/I990 is dismissed for..n,on--prosie€:i,itioii;"' Post Prob.CP 4/1989 for orders1'_i_a11d it beforethe bie;:;:::«1 haibingétifie roster in due course. sdi»-¥_i Judge nv-._ was Qmm.&%%%&¢hi ti iilbvﬂﬁ, M - i#' /Fv be --*U"fV'~'l9'§9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court