Omission of Citation to Sole Legal Heir Constitutes Substantial Defect Warranting Revocation of Probate

Late Rosalind Samson (the deceased), a Jew, passed away on February 22, 2008

Respondent No. 1, claiming to be the sole Executor of a Will dated February 6, 2008, obtained probate on July 10, 2009, asserting the deceased left no surviving heirs

The Petitioner, residing in Sweden, filed for revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, claiming to be the biological son and sole heir of the deceased

He alleged the grant was obtained via suppressio veri (suppression of truth) as no citation was served upon him despite the Respondents' awareness of his existence

The Respondents contested his parentage, citing the deceased’s passport which described her as a "spinster" with no children

1. Whether the Petitioner is the biological son of the deceased Rosalind Samson, thereby establishing a caveatable interest?

2. Whether the grant of probate was "defective in substance" or obtained by "concealing something material" under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act?

Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which allows revocation of probate for "just cause," including instances where proceedings are defective in substance or obtained fraudulently

Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi, establishing that the omission to issue citations to a necessary party is normally grounds for revocation

Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, defining a "caveatable interest" as a person whose rights are prejudiced by the probate

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to grant presumptive value to birth certificate entries

Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act to admit statements about relationship made by a deceased person (letters/aerograms) before the dispute arose

The Court found the Petitioner established a strong prima facie case of being the biological son. It prioritized the 1946 Birth Certificate [Exhibit P6], noting that under the 1969 Act, entries in official registers by public servants carry presumptive correctness unless rebutted by the challenger

The Court rejected the Respondents’ argument that a birth certificate only proves the fact of birth and not parentage, noting that prescribed statutory forms specifically include parental names

Approximately 40 letters and aerograms sent by the deceased to the Petitioner, addressing him as "Son," were deemed relevant under Section 32(5) as they were written ante litem motam (before the controversy)

Respondent No. 2 admitted during cross-examination that the Petitioner visited the deceased annually since 1979 and stayed in her flat. The Court held that the Executor’s statement—that the deceased "had no relatives in India"—was a guarded subterfuge that suppressed the fact of relatives existing abroad

The Court allowed the Petition, revoked the Probate dated July 10, 2009, and restored Testamentary Petition No. 917 of 2008 for fresh determination in the presence of the Petitioner. An interim injunction on the estate was ordered to continue pending the final disposal of the restored petition