Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart

My Legacy Box-logo

E. Sankaran v. Mrs. Krishnaveni

Citation: AIR 2011 MADRAS 269

Name of parties:

Appellants: E. Sankaran

Respondent: Mrs. Krishnaveni

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi and Periya Karuppiah, JJ

Date Of Appeal: 2011

Date Of Judgement: Fri Jul 01 2011

Facts of Case

This case revolves around the Application made under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of a grant of probate, to which the Applicant was completely a third party. The Application made was dismissed on the grounds that he does not have an authority to bring such Application as he was a third party to the concerned proceedings in this case. Aggrieved by this decision, this individual filed an appeal.

Issues Before Court

Judgement

The court held that the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is set aside. The Court stated that “we could find that the revocation application can be filed by any person whose interest is affected by an order of grant of probate to invoke provisions of Sec 263 of the Indian Succession Act and if those provisions are satisfied, an order has to be passed under the said Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act.” 

Key Takeaways

Judgments relied upon:

  • Elizabeth Antony v. Micheal Charles John (AIR 1990 SC 1576): It was held that any interest, however slight, and even a bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle a person to enter a caveat in a probate proceeding.
  • Basanti Devi v. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal [2008 (1) CTC 698 (SC)]: Persons who ought to have been cited as parties in the probate proceedings, if not cited, would also lead to revocation. A person who is aggrieved and had no knowledge about the proceedings, and proper citations were not made, is entitled to file an application for revocation of probate on such grounds as may be available to him.

Frequently Asked Questions

The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.

Disclaimer:   Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.