Karnataka HC Leaves Probate Of Late Man’s Will In Place, Gives Objectors Liberty To Seek Revocation Before Same Court under Section 263

The respondent obtained probate of a registered Will dated 24 February 2014, executed by late V. Subramani, in P. & S.C. No. 76/2019.

The appellants, who had contested the probate petition, appealed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking to set aside the probate insofar as it concerned item No. 3.

They alleged that the testator lacked sound health and mind when executing the Will and that item No. 3 had already been decreed in favour of another person in O.S. No. 58/2020.

The High Court noted that the appellants had not raised the latter matter in their pleadings or evidence before the trial Court and had adduced no evidence there.

The respondent was served but did not appear in the appeal.

Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides for an appeal from an order made by a District Judge in probate proceedings.

Under Section 263, a party seeking revocation of probate or letters of administration must apply to the court that granted them and show “just cause” for revocation.

Relying on Swaminathan & Ors. v. Alankamony (Dead) Through LRs, Civil Appeal Nos. 798–799 of 2013, decided 9 March 2022, the Court stated that a party claiming that its case was not considered in the probate proceedings must seek revocation under Section 263 before the court that granted probate.

The appellants relied on the decree in O.S. No. 58/2020 and other grounds to challenge the probate, but the High Court observed that the decree-related assertions had not been raised in their pleadings or supported by evidence before the trial Court; the appellants had adduced no evidence in the probate proceedings.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Court held that the appropriate course was an application for revocation under Section 263 before the court that granted probate, where the appellants’ grounds could be considered in accordance with law.

The Court did not decide the merits of those grounds.

All contentions were kept open, including the allegation of a subsequent alienation, and the appellants were permitted to seek impleadment of necessary parties.