The Supreme Court of India has held that a probate certificate granted for the execution of a will can be revoked if it is found to have been obtained through misrepresentation, false statements or fraud.
Referring to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the court noted that probate or letters of administration may be revoked if they were secured “fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case”.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M Pancholi delivered the judgment, setting aside a contrary ruling of the Madras High Court, which had held that a granted probate could not be revoked.
Justice Pancholi, who authored the judgment, observed that any person with even a slight interest in the estate of a testator is entitled to file a caveat and contest the grant of probate. He added that probate is a judgment in rem, binding not only on the parties but on the world at large.
The court also noted that in the probate proceedings filed under Section 276 of the Act, the respondent had failed to implead her two brothers or their legal heirs, as well as the present appellants, as parties.
The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by Leorex Sebastian and other property owners, who challenged the probate granted to Sarojini. The appellants argued that the property in question had already been sold to them by the original owner, Eswaramurthy Gounder, Sarojini’s father.
Allowing the appeal, the apex court observed that not only the appellants but also Sarojini’s siblings were not made parties to the original probate proceedings. It held that the respondent ought to have impleaded them and that the District Court should have issued citations to all parties concerned.
The court concluded that the respondent had obtained the probate by suppressing material facts and without proper notice being issued to the necessary parties. It, therefore, held that the District Court was justified in revoking the probate. Accordingly, the apex court ruled that the High Court had committed a grave error in setting aside the District Court’s order, and quashed the High Court’s decision.