Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court dismissing an application for revocation of probate. The appellant, Manju Puri, daughter of Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra, sought revocation of probate granted on 04.06.1982 in respect of the Will of Surjan Singh Randhawa, who died on 28.11.1962. The probate was obtained by Bachittar Singh Randhawa, brother of the deceased, based on a Will dated 15.06.1961 bequeathing property to the eldest daughter, Smt. Gian Hanspal. The probate application was accompanied by no-objection certificates from Smt. Gian Hanspal, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa (widow of Surjan Singh), and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra (younger daughter). The appellant alleged that the no-objection certificate of her mother was forged, as her mother signed as 'Beena Kumari Mehra' but the certificate bore the signature 'Beena Mehra'. The appellant also contended that no citation was issued to her mother, a legal heir, and that the probate was obtained by fraud. The learned Single Judge rejected the revocation application citing delay and lack of entitlement to citation. The Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the probate was granted without issuing citation to the legal heir and on the basis of a forged no-objection certificate, which constituted sufficient grounds for revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and revoked the probate, but clarified that the revocation would operate prospectively and not affect the rights of the bona fide purchaser, respondent No.4, who had purchased the property in 2010.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Revocation of Probate - Section 263 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Grounds for Revocation - The court considered whether probate granted without citation to a legal heir and based on a forged no-objection certificate could be revoked. Held that such circumstances constitute sufficient grounds for revocation under Section 263, as the grant was obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts. (Paras 16-30) B) Succession Law - Issuance of Citation - Section 283 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Discretion of Court - The court examined whether issuance of citation is mandatory. Held that while Section 283 uses the word 'may', the discretion must be exercised judicially; where a legal heir is likely to be affected, citation should ordinarily be issued to ensure due process. (Paras 20-25) C) Succession Law - Forged No-Objection Certificate - Revocation of Probate - The court analyzed the effect of a forged no-objection certificate on the validity of probate. Held that a probate obtained on the basis of a forged document is voidable and liable to be revoked, as it amounts to fraud on the court. (Paras 26-30) D) Succession Law - Bona Fide Purchaser - Rights of Purchaser - The court addressed the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value who purchased property based on the probate. Held that revocation of probate operates prospectively and does not affect the rights of a bona fide purchaser who acted in good faith and for value. (Paras 31-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether sufficient grounds were made out for revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, when the probate was granted without issuing citation to the legal heir and on the basis of an allegedly forged no-objection certificate.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Calcutta High Court, and revoked the probate granted on 04.06.1982. However, the revocation was directed to operate prospectively and not affect the rights of respondent No.4, the bona fide purchaser for value.
Law Points
- Revocation of probate
- Section 263 Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Issuance of citation
- Section 283 Indian Succession Act
- Fraud
- Forged no-objection certificate
- Calcutta High Court Rules
- Chapter XXXV
- Rule 9
- Bona fide purchaser for value
- Prospective effect of revocation
