ELIZABETH ANTONY versus MICHEL CHARLES JOHN CHOWN LENGERA

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 12-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
. G 
ELIZABETH ANTONY 
v. 
MICHEL CHARLES JOHN CHOWN LENGERA 
APRIL 12, 1990 
[S. RAlNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
- . -
. REDDY, JJ.) 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: Sections. 227, 263, · 283-286 & 
288: Will-Probate-:. Letters' of Administratiori-Caveat opposin~ pfo- -."""; 
bate of the Will-Caveatable interest based on Will and Gift-Copies of 
Gift Deed and Will not filed in the Probate Court-Held caveatable 
y 
interest not substantiated. 
-
·· 
Will-Probate Court-Findings regarding caveatable interest 
effect -of-Findings are relevant only to the extent of granting of 
probate-Does not deprive of right to invoke jurisdiction of probate 
court for revocation of probate-Granting a probate is not deciding the 
- disputes to the title-A probate granted can be revoked for just Cause. 
The respondent, claiming to be the beneficiary to the estate or 
deceased 'M' under a will executed by her, filed an application in the 
Sob Conrt for Letters or Administration. The petitioner lodged a caveat 
and opposed the probate or the will on the ground that the will pro-
pounded by the respondent was a fictitious one intended to disentitle _/ 
•z•, danghter of 'M', from claiming interest in the estate of her mother 
'M'. The petitioner based her caveatable interest on the basis of mem-
bership of the Trust, a gin-deed and a will executed by 'Z' which was 
subsequently probated in her favour. 
_ The Subordinate Judge struck off the petitioner's caveat on the 
ground that she has no caveatable 'interest. 
The-petitioner filed a ~ivil Revision Petition in the High Court-\-
and a Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the order of the Subor-
dinate Judge • 
In the special leave to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
petitioner that the courts below have erred (i) in holding that she has no 
caveatable interest and in striking off her caveat; (ii) that Z's will in her 
favour which was subsequently probated established her interest_ in the~-
H _estate '!n the date of entering the caveat. 
,.. ---
• 
.486 
• 
MRS. ELIZABE1H v. MICHEL 
A.87 
Dismissing the petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. By granting a probate the Court does not decide the 
disputes to the title. A probate granted can be revoked under Section · 
263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. [492C] 
I .1 In the instant case the findings regarding the caveatable 
interest of the petitioner have a limited effect and are relevant only to '-' 
the extent of granting of probate. But thev cannot deprive her right to 
invoke section 263 of the Act. [492D] 
2. The order of the Trial Court shows that admiUedly neither the 
original nor a copy of the will said to have been executed by 'Z' was 
filed. Likewise the registered gill-deed· or a copy thereof was not filed. It 
is also evident that the Trust has come to an end and the same was not in 
existence. The Trial Court has considered both the documentary and 
oral evidence in this regard and has rightly held that the petitioner has 
no existing benefit from the trust. Accordingly, it cannot be held that 
the petitioner has caveatable interest. [490F-G; 491 C] 
3. In the instant case it is not known whether the citations were 
issued to all the persons interested before the grant of the probate. The 
probate was also granted when the special leave petition was pending in 
this Court yet the respondent had no notice about this probate proceed· 
ings. Under these circumstances it is not expedient to acknowledge this 
probate proceeding and re-open the matter. [491G-H] 
Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaren Chandra Biswas and Ors .• AIR. 
1932 Cal. 734; Gourishankar Chattoraj v. Smt. Satyabati Debi, AIR 
1931 Cal. 470; Shanti Devi Aggarwa/a v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar & 
Ors., AIR 1972 Orissa, 178 and Narayan Sah v. Sm/. Devaki, AIR 1978 
Patna 220, referred to. 
· 
Y 
CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: S.L.P. (Civil) No: 8896 
of 1985. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1984 of the Madras 
High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 5539 of 1983. · · 
WITH 
C.M.P. No. 28592 of 1988. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
R.F. Nariman, J.P. Pathak, M.B. Shivraj and P.H. Parekh for 
the Petitioner. 
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respon-
-'I 
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. We have heard both the sides 
and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage. 
'\ 
This petition is directed against the

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