Failure to cite interested pre-litigation alienees constitutes just cause for revoking probate.

The appellants claim ownership of suit properties in Coimbatore, originally belonging to Eswaramurthy Gounder.

Eswaramurthy and his sons sold the properties to C.R. Palanisamy Gounder and R. Manickavasagam via sale deed on 21.02.1976.

The appellants subsequently purchased these properties from the legal heirs of the 1976 buyers on 31.12.1997.

Eswaramurthy died in 1983.

In 2009, 26 years later, Respondent 1 (Eswaramurthy’s daughter) sought probate for an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976, impleading only her sisters and omitting her brothers and the appellants.

Eight days later, Respondent 1 filed a title suit (O.S. 110/2009) alleging her father was coerced into the 1976 sale.

The District Court granted probate in 2009, but later revoked it in 2020 upon an application by the appellants under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act (ISA), citing suppression of facts and non-citation of interested parties.

The High Court of Madras set aside the revocation, holding that probate jurisdiction is limited to the Will’s genuineness and not property title.

The court primarily applied Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which allows revocation of probate for "just cause," including instances where the grant was obtained fraudulently by concealing material facts or without citing parties who ought to have been cited.

It relied on Basanti Devi v. Ravi Prakash Ram Prasad Jaiswal, affirming that probate is a judgment in rem and aggrieved persons without knowledge of the proceedings may seek revocation.

It further applied the principle from Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar, establishing that any person with even a slight "caveatable interest" in the estate must be served citations.

Finally, it followed the doctrine from Banwarilal v. Kusum Bai, holding that an alienee (purchaser) who acquires interest in the estate prior to the probate petition is a person who "ought to have been cited".

The Court observed that Respondent 1 was fully aware of the 1976 sale deeds executed by her father, as evidenced by the averments in her parallel title suit filed mere days after the probate petition.

Despite this knowledge, she failed to implead her brothers or the current owners (the appellants) in the probate proceedings.

The Court reasoned that since the appellants purchased the property in 1997—long before the 2009 probate petition—they possessed a clear caveatable interest.

The High Court erred by focusing solely on the "title" aspect; the Supreme Court clarified that while a probate court does not decide title, it must ensure the process is free from fraud.

Obtaining a judgment in rem (probate) by suppressing the fact that the testator himself had alienated the property during his lifetime constitutes "just cause" for revocation under Section 263, Explanation (b).

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the District Court's order revoking the probate of the Will dated 09.01.1976.

The appeal was allowed, with a clarification that the pending civil suits regarding title should be decided independently on their merits.