Karnataka HC Sends Sister’s Probate Challenge Back For Review, Leaving Nearly 10-Year Delay And Will Revocation Unresolved

The appellant sought revocation of a 2016 probate granted in respect of the alleged Will of late Smt. Tarulata Bavishi.

She filed Misc. No. 506/2025 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA), together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a delay of 3,818 days.

She contended that she had not been made a party to the probate proceedings and challenged calculation of delay from the date probate was granted rather than from the date she learned of it.

The Probate Court rejected the delay-condonation application and consequently dismissed the miscellaneous petition.

The appellant appealed under Section 299 ISA read with Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC.

Section 263 ISA permits revocation or annulment of a grant for “just cause”; under Explanation (a), just cause includes proceedings defective in substance, and Illustration (ii) addresses a grant made without citing parties who ought to have been cited.

The Court referred to Swaminathan & Ors. v. Alankamony (Dead) Through LRs., Civil Appeal Nos. 798–799 of 2013, decided 9 March 2022, on that principle.

The Court also noted that a person seeking revocation on the ground of being an omitted legal heir should proceed under Section 263 ISA, setting out just cause, rather than invoke Section 299 ISA for that relief.

The appellant’s application also invoked Order IX Rule 13 CPC and sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; the judgment did not determine the applicable starting point for computing delay.

The Court considered the appellant’s asserted status as a legal heir and her claim that she had not been made a party to the probate proceedings, alongside the respondents’ reliance on publication of a citation in The New Indian Express.

It held that the Probate Court should determine whether the delay is to be computed from the date of the probate grant or from the appellant’s date of knowledge, and reconsider both the revocation claim and the delay application.

In light of Section 263 and the cited authority concerning omitted parties, the Court remitted the matter without deciding the merits or the sufficiency of the appellant’s explanation for delay.

The matter was remitted to the Probate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, including reconsideration of the revocation claim and the delay in filing the application.

The parties were directed to appear before that court on 16 November 2026; all contentions were left open, and the High Court expressed no opinion on the merits.