S.263 Succession Act | Grounds For Annulment Of Probate Are Illustrative, Not Exhaustive: Bombay High Court Clarifies
The Bombay High Court has held that the explanations (a) to (e) appended to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for annulment of probate, are illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court clarified that even circumstances not specifically enumerated in these explanations can amount to “just cause” for revoking or annulling a grant of Probate or Letters of Administration, depending...
The Bombay High Court has held that the explanations (a) to (e) appended to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for annulment of probate, are illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court clarified that even circumstances not specifically enumerated in these explanations can amount to “just cause” for revoking or annulling a grant of Probate or Letters of Administration, depending on the facts of each case.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice N.R. Borkar delivered the ruling while answering a reference made by Justice Manish Pitale to decide whether the grounds listed in the explanations to Section 263 were exhaustive or merely illustrative. The reference arose from a testamentary dispute over the estate of a person who died by suicide in Ecuador. The petitioner sought revocation of the probate granted to the respondent, alleging procedural defects and non-compliance with Section 63 of the Act, as the attesting witnesses had signed the Will in India while the testator executed it abroad.
The Court noted that the object of Section 263 is to preserve the integrity of probate proceedings and to prevent grants obtained through fraud, concealment, or procedural unfairness. It held that restricting “just cause” only to the situations enumerated in explanations (a) to (e) would result in injustice and defeat the legislative intent. It observed:
“If the interpretation were to be restrictive, it would result in injustice… Such an interpretation would defeat the very object of the law, which is to provide the court with the flexibility to revoke probate whenever circumstances reveal the existence of a 'just cause'.”
The Court emphasized that the phrase “deemed to be just cause” in the Explanation clause signifies that while the listed instances automatically qualify as “just cause,” other circumstances may also warrant revocation when fairness and justice so require.
“… in all other cases which do not fall within (a) to (e) of the Explanation, the Courts would have to, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, determine whether 'just cause' is made out. The Explanation clause providing a deeming fiction applies to the circumstances where a case is made out in clauses (a) to (e),” the Court observed.
The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Court to determine whether a 'just cause' exists in a given fact situation cannot be stifled by giving a restrictive meaning to 'just cause' in Section 263. It highlighted that the Explanation clause merely clarifies the meaning of the main Section. It can neither be interpreted to widen nor narrow down the scope of the main provision.
The Court approved the view of Justice Pitale that the wording of Section 263 reflects an intention to allow wider judicial discretion.
Accordingly, the Court held that circumstances not enumerated in the Explanation can constitute “just cause” for revocation or annulment of a grant of Probate or Letters of Administration.
Case Title: Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary v. Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka [Misc. Petition (L) No. 6300 of 2024 in Testamentary Petition No. 109 of 2021]