KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA versus RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 31-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 640 
A 
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA 
)-
v 
RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 31, 2008 
(S.8. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
.. 
Succession- Indian Succession Act, 1925- Section 2(c), 
2(h), 283, 284, 285 & 286 - Calcutta High Court Rules, 1940 
c - Rule 4, 5(a), 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30- Indian Trusts Act, 
1882 - Section 73 - Probate And Administration Act, 1881 -
Section 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 & 83. 
Caveatable interest means an interest in the estate of 
the deceased to which the caveator would otherwise be entitled 
D to and having a special interest therein - Caveatable interest 
may arise only after suit for enforcement of mutual Will is 
decreed. 
+ 
Manner of filing an application for grant of probate -
E 
Jurisdiction of Probate Court - Discussed. 
Construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest 
of any other person to whom a citation is to be issued or a 
caveator, must have some interest in the estate of the testator. 
,. 
F 
Judgment rendered in a probate proceedings - Not 
determinative of the question of title. 
Scope and applicability of Section 284 of Indian 
)l 
... 
Succession Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
G 
Purposive construction to be resorted to having regard 
to the purport and object of the Act. 
,__ 
While interpreting the provisions of a statute, one must 
+ 
also bear in mind the admitted legal position that a probate 
H 
640 
· 
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 
641 
AND OTHERS 
1 i 
proceeding should not be converted into a title suit. 
A 
.. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S. 122 - High Court 
could frame Rules under the power conferred to it- Constitution 
of India, Article 227. 
Precedent - What could be done and has not been done B 
by a Court of equity does not create precedent. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Ceasing to be" - "contention" - Meaning of 
PDB and MPB were very wealthy persons. and c 
owned an industrial empire known as Birla Group of 
Industries. Both of them had executed mutual wills on 
identical terms on or about 10.5.1981 bequeathing his/her 
respective estate(s). Later, the wills were revoked and 
another set of mutual wills were executed on 13.7.1982 D 
and four executors were appointed in each set of will. 
-t 
MPB died on 30.7.1990. On or about 18.4.1999, PDB 
executed her last will bequeathing her entire estate to tlJe 
first respondent RSL, appointing him as the sole executor. E 
PDB died on 3.7 .2004. 
RSL filed an application for grant of probate. The 
appellants in the connected appeals filed caveats. RSL 
took out an application seeking discharge of caveats 
entered into by KKB, BKB, GPB and YB before the High F 
Court. 
.., 
~ 
A suit was filed by the surviving executors of the 1982 
wills for a declaration that RSL was not entitled to deal 
with the assets of PDB in any manner contrary to and 
inconsistent with terms of the 1982 will. 
G 
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
application of discharge of caveats filed by KKB, BKB and 
+ 
YB; caveat filed by GPB was retained. Application filed 
for discharge of caveat of RSL was also dismissed. H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 5 S.C.R. 
,. 
A Appeals were filed before the High Court. Cross 
)-
objections were filed by RSL against retaining the caveat 
filed by KKB, SKB and YB as also the appointment of YB 
as the executor of MPB. The appeals and the cross 
objections were dismissed. Hence the appeals. 
B 
On the basis of the contentions raised by the parties, 
the question involved in the appeals is what is a cavetable 
+ 
interest within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act 
vis-a-vis the rules framed by the Calcutta High Court in 
the year 1940. 
c 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. 2278 of 2008 filed by RSL 
challenging the appointment of YB, and dismissing the 
other appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A suit in respect of property over which 
D probate would have effect, must have a direct nexus with 
the estate of the testator and not to enforce a right in 
respect of the application of the estate of the testator 
+ 
under another will. Right to maintain a suit must be 
independent of the wills sought to be probated. No legal 
E right accrues under an unprobated Will except in case 
where taking of probate is not mandatory. [Para 76] 
[683-D-E] 
'. 
1.2 A suit which would be maintainable must have 
·something to do with the estate of the testator. Inheritance 
F by Will itself may be a subject matter of contention. 
Whether th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.