Probate cannot be granted without notifying potential caveatable heirs and effecting general paper publication.

The petitioner sought probate of a registered Will dated 23 September 2022, allegedly executed by T.E. Radha, naming the petitioner as executor and sole beneficiary. The petitioner was the testatrix’s niece.

The testatrix died childless, and her husband had predeceased her; the property had originally been acquired by him.

The petitioner and an attesting witness gave evidence, and the testatrix’s siblings and certain other respondents filed consent affidavits.

After the Court queried whether the husband’s heirs had been identified and whether general paper publication had been effected, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the husband was an only child and his parents had predeceased him. The Court found that the affidavit did not identify any other possible heirs on the husband’s side, and that publication remained unproved

1. Whether the petitioner had adequately identified and given notice to persons on the deceased husband’s side who might have a caveatable interest in the estate

2. Whether probate could be granted when general paper publication had not been effected and the Court’s directions to cure these deficiencies had not been complied with

Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, govern an executor’s application for probate and the form of the petition.

The Court applied the principle that persons who would be entitled to succeed in the absence of a Will, and who may therefore have a caveatable interest, must be properly identified and placed on notice.

It also relied on Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which, in the absence of a son or daughter, property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father-in-law devolves upon the heirs of the husband.

The Court further treated general paper publication as a procedural requirement in the proceedings; it cited no precedent

Although the petitioner produced the Will and an attesting witness testified to its execution, that evidence did not resolve the separate procedural requirement to notify persons with a possible caveatable interest.

The petitioner’s affidavit established that the deceased husband had no siblings and that his parents had predeceased him, but did not provide a complete genealogy or identify any other possible heirs.

Because the relevant property had been acquired by the husband and Section 15(2)(b) could make his heirs relevant to succession in the absence of a Will, the Court found the explanation inadequate.

The respondents’ consent affidavits did not cure the failure to identify and notify possible heirs, and the petitioner had also failed to prove general paper publication despite being given an opportunity to do so

Probate was not granted, and there was no order as to costs