BASANTI DEVI versus RAVIPRAKASH RAMPRASAD JAISWAL

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BASANTI DEVI 
v. 
RA VIPRAKASH RAMPRASAD JAISW AL 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: 
C 
ss.263 & 283(3)-Revoking of probate-Just cause-Held: 
Application for grant of probate is a proceeding in rem-Being a 
judgment in rem, a person, who is aggrieved thereby and having had 
no knowledge about the proceedings and proper citations having not 
been made, is entitled to file an application for revocation of probate 
D on such grounds as may be available to him-Hindu.Succession Act, 
1956-ss. 3(/), 8 & I 5-Bombay High Court Rules-r. 683. 
A Will had been executed in favour of Respondent by a Hindu 
widow. Pursuant to her death, Respondent filed an application for grant 
E of probate in relation to the Will which was granted by the High Court. 
Appellant filed application for revocation of the said grant of 
probate, inter alia, on the premise that although she was one of the heirs 
of the said deceased widow, no citation was made and that furthermore, 
a Will had also been executed in her favour. A Single Judge of the High 
F 
Court dismissed the application for revocation of probate on the ground 
thatthough public notice was issued before issuing the probate, Appellant 
neither filed any caveat nor filed any objection after the publication. Intra-
Court appeal flied thereagainst was dismissed by Division Bench of the 
said Court on the premise that Appellant, being an agnate, was not a 
G legal heir of the deceased widow. 
H 
Appellant contended before this Court that the H~gh Court 
committed a grave error insofar as it failed to take into consideration 
that an agnate is also an heir in terms of the provisions of the Hindu 
444 
f 
BASANTI DEVI v. RA VIPRAKASH RAMPRASAD 
445 
JAISWAL 
: - }' 
Succession Act, 1956. It was furthermore contended that the said A 
application should have been entertained having regard to Explan~tion 
(c) appended to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 
irrespective of the fact as to whether the appellant had any notice of 
the probate of the said Will. 
The primary question which arose for consideration in the present B 
appeal is whether an application under Section 263 of the Indian 
y 
Succession Act for revocation of grant of probate would be maintainable, 
inter alia, on the premise that the Appellant's name was not cited in the 
~ 
said application for grant of probate. 
c 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matlerto the Probate Court, 
this Court 
HELD: 1. Parliament enacted the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to 
amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. D 
...... 
Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act defines 'heir' to mean any 
person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an 
intestate under the Act. Section 15 of the Act lays down the gene(al 
rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. For the purpose of 
ascertaining as to who would be heirs of the husband if the deceased E 
did not leave any sons and daughters or husband; reference has to be 
made to Section 8 of the Act In view thereof, it is not correct to say that 
agnates of the deceased are not heirs. [Paras 11and12] 
2. Also, in view of Rule 683 of the Bombay High Court Rules, it is 
F 
~r 
not correct to contend that no citation in regard to the heirs of the 
deceased Hindu widow was necessary. [Para 14) [453-A, BJ 
3.1. The properties left by the deceased widow were situated at 
two places, one in the State of Maharashtra and another in the district 
of Pratapgarh in the State ofUttar Pradesh. However, the Respondent1 G 
for the reasons best known to him, did not, at the first instance, disclose 
,-J, 
that any property belonging to the testator was situated at a place other', 
than the State of Maharashtra. Such disclosure was required to be made 
in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act. 
Citations were also required to be published by the concerned District H 
t 
\_ 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
Judge in terms thereof. In the application for amendment of the 
1' -- j 
A 
application, a vague statement was made. Even therein it was not 
disclosed that another property is situated in the District of Pratapgarh 
in the State ofUttar Pradesh, the reason therefor is beyond anybody's 
comprehension. [Paras 14, 15and16] [453-B, C, D, E] 
B 
3.2. The provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 283 are 
mandatory in nature. Once the statu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.