Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India

Two writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as unconstitutional. Petitioner 1 is an Indian Christian and citizen. Petitioner 2 was a Catholic Association from Karnataka. Petitioner 1 was the sole beneficiary of a registered Will executed by his aunt, who bequeathed her entire estate to him out of affection. Petitioner 2 received a letter from the Housing Society in Delhi in August 1993 stating that the committee had decided not to hand over the flat to him without a court direction.

The petitioner was not in a position to establish his legal right over the property in question or to obtain any relief from the court on account of the fact that he was a Christian who was bound by the restriction provided under Section 213 of the Act and since Section 213 of the Act comes in the way of exercising his right, the petitioner challenged the validity of the said provision for identical reasons as set forth in the connected writ petition.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and held that the scope of Section 213 (1) is that it prohibits recognition of rights as an executor/legatee under a Will without production of certificate of probate. The bar imposed is only in respect of the establishment of right as an executor and not in respect of the establishment of the right in any other capacity. The Court listed various circumstances where Section 213 applies to other religious groups as well, and hence dismissed the contention that the section is applicable only to Indian Christians.

It held that the impugned differences are not based on any religion but on historical reasons, that in British India, probate was required to prove the right of a beneficiary or an executor but not in Part ‘B’ or ‘C’ states. The Supreme Court held that only on the basis that some differences arise in one or other states in regard to succession through disposition of Wills, the law does not become discriminatory so as to be invalid, since such differences are bound to arise in a federal set-up.