A stranger claiming adverse title cannot revoke probate to challenge the testator’s ownership.

P. Ramamoorthy obtained probate on 26.11.2010 in respect of the Will dated 05.04.2006 executed by late P. Nayagam. The probate proceedings concerned, inter alia, lands measuring 37 cents in Survey No. 590 and 58 cents in Survey No. 591, Korattur Village.

M/s. Alliance Projects, a third party, claimed to have purchased the disputed 95 cents under a sale deed dated 05.09.2005, registered on 06.09.2005, and asserted possession and development of the property thereafter.

It alleged that neither P. Nayagam nor his predecessor, Sadhu Gangaiah/Kenghiah Swamigal, had valid title to the lands and that the properties had therefore been wrongly included in P. Nayagam’s Will and affidavit of assets.

The applicant also contended that it had not been served with notice in the probate proceedings and that the dismissal of an earlier proceeding concerning the predecessor Will dated 08.12.1993 had not been disclosed when probate was sought, amounting to suppression of a material fact.

The executor opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had no caveatable interest and was merely raising an adverse title claim, which had to be decided in a civil suit rather than in probate proceedings.

The applicant consequently sought revocation of the probate, limited to the properties in Survey Nos. 590 and 591, under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Whether the applicant, claiming an independent and adverse title to properties included in the Will, had a caveatable interest entitling it to seek revocation of probate for non-service of citation?

Whether the alleged absence of title in the testator or his predecessor constituted “just cause” under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for revoking the probate in respect of the disputed properties?

Whether the alleged non-disclosure of the earlier proceedings concerning the predecessor Will amounted to fraud, false suggestion, or concealment of a material fact warranting revocation under Section 263?

Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 permits revocation or annulment of a grant for “just cause,” including circumstances where the grant was obtained through fraud, false suggestion, concealment of material facts, or where the proceedings were defective.

The probate court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining the genuineness, due execution, attestation, and testamentary capacity relating to the Will; it does not adjudicate the testator’s title to the bequeathed property or the validity of the bequest as against an adverse claimant.

A person seeking to challenge the grant for non-service of citation must ordinarily establish a caveatable interest in the deceased’s estate; an independent claimant asserting title adverse to the testator is not claiming through the estate.

The Court relied on Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, (1990) 3 SCC 333, and E. Sankaran v. Krishnaveni, 2011 (5) CTC 117, concerning revocation for fraud, suppression, or denial of notice to an interested person; and on Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300, P.G. Gopal v. V. Manickavelu, 2003 (4) CTC 257, and Velayudham v. S. Ponnambalam, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 928, for the principles that probate does not determine title and that an adverse title claimant lacks a caveatable interest in the testamentary estate.

The Court held that the applicant’s case was fundamentally an assertion of independent ownership based on its 2005 sale deed, coupled with a challenge to the title of P. Nayagam and his predecessor.

Such a dispute concerned title to the properties and the effectiveness of the bequest, matters falling within the jurisdiction of a competent civil court and not within probate jurisdiction.

Because the applicant did not claim through P. Nayagam or as a successor or beneficiary of his estate, it had no caveatable interest merely because the probate order referred to properties which it claimed to own.

The Court further found that the applicant had not established fraud, false suggestion, or concealment of a material fact affecting the grant.

The alleged non-disclosure of the earlier proceedings did not, on the material presented, demonstrate that probate had been fraudulently obtained.

The applicant’s request to revoke probate only in relation to Survey Nos. 590 and 591 reinforced that the real dispute was over title to particular properties, rather than the validity of the Will or the probate grant as a whole.

The cited authorities were distinguishable because they involved persons claiming through the deceased’s estate or persons allegedly entitled to citation, unlike the applicant’s adverse title claim.

An independent claim of title to properties included in a Will could not justify partial revocation of probate, nor could the applicant use testamentary proceedings to obtain adjudication of its title.

Accordingly, the application to revoke the probate dated 26.11.2010 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Court clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the applicant’s right, if any, to establish its independent title to Survey Nos. 590 and 591 before the competent civil court in accordance with law.