2016 (10) TMI 1342 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of probate on the basis of a Will claimed to be the last Will - caveatable interest - HELD THAT - Chapter XXXV of the Rules incorporate provisions relating to testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. Rule 1 defines non-contentious business to include the business of obtaining probate and letters of administration (with or without the will annexed and whether general special or limited) where there is no contention as to the right thereto as also in contentious cases where the contest is terminated and also includes the business of lodging caveats against the grant of probate or letters of administration - A careful reading of Rules 28 and 30 makes it abundantly clear that before the proceedings are numbered as a suit by orders of a Judge for being tried as a suit as per provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court may take up as a preliminary issue whether the caveator has a caveatable interest if such an application is filed before the Court by the Petitioner. Clearly the preliminary issues are triable before the proceedings are treated as a full-fledged suit under order of the Judge concerned. It is deemed proper to point out that although the caveator Yasheel Jain did not file the original Will the Division Bench has noted that he has filed a photocopy of the prior Will allegedly executed by the testator and has also produced the registered envelope through which such copy was sent to him by the testator along with the forwarding letter written by him. Upon such materials the Division Bench recorded its prima facie satisfaction that the caveat should not be discharged. In the case of caveat by Respondent Malati the Division Bench noted the citations in the Will propounded by the Appellant showing Malati to be only a maid servant but on the basis of totality of facts and circumstances it rightly came to the conclusion that a person by merely making a contrary statement in the Will cannot change a real relationship if it actually existed and hence at least arguable case in favour of claim of Malati as regards her relation with the testator has been established and hence she deserves to be permitted to contest the probate proceeding. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispute over grant of probate based on a Will.
2. Challenge to caveats filed by respondents in probate proceedings.
3. Claim of caveatable interest by caveators.
4. Interpretation of Rules 24, 28, and 30 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules.
5. Definition and determination of "caveatable interest."
6. Application of legal principles to determine caveatable interest in probate proceedings.

Issue 1: Dispute over grant of probate based on a Will:
The appeals arose from probate proceedings initiated by the Appellant for the grant of probate based on a Will claimed to be the last testament of the Appellant's brother. The Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta rejected the Appellant's prayer to reject the caveats of Respondents, leading to the joint hearing of both appeals and a common judgment.

Issue 2: Challenge to caveats filed by respondents:
The Appellant, as the propounder of the Will, sought probate, while Respondents lodged caveats claiming interests in the deceased's estate. The Single Judge and Division Bench considered the objections raised by the caveators, ultimately upholding the caveats based on differing reasons, including the existence of a prior Will and the claim of being a lawful widow.

Issue 3: Claim of caveatable interest by caveators:
The Respondents asserted caveatable interests based on being a nephew of the testator and a prior Will, as well as claiming to be the lawful widow. The courts analyzed these claims, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence to support caveatable interests, allowing caveators to contest probate proceedings.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Rules 24, 28, and 30:
The Rules outlined the procedure for lodging caveats against the grant of probate. Rule 30 allowed for the trial of preliminary issues regarding caveatable interest before treating proceedings as a full-fledged suit, emphasizing the importance of determining caveatable interest before granting probate.

Issue 5: Definition and determination of "caveatable interest":
The courts extensively discussed the concept of caveatable interest, citing precedents to establish that a claimant's right could be prejudiced by the grant of probate, supporting the Respondents' caveatable interests based on conflicting lines of succession.

Issue 6: Application of legal principles to determine caveatable interest:
The courts applied legal principles to assess caveatable interests, considering evidence presented by caveators to support their claims, such as the existence of a prior Will and the relationship status with the deceased. The judgments emphasized the need for prima facie satisfaction to maintain caveats in probate proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the caveats based on the determination of caveatable interests by the Respondents. The judgments highlighted the importance of establishing prima facie evidence to support claims of caveatable interest in probate proceedings.