Case Brief (Rewritten): Joseph Easwaran Wapsphere v. Shirley Kathleen Wheeler

Gorden Wapshare died on 18.01.1991, leaving behind his brother Edward Wapshare and one sister Violet Wapshare with a daughter, Ellen Jackson. Edward Wapshare was married to Beatrice; however, no children were born out of this marriage. The respondent in this case is the daughter of Beatrice born to her second husband.

In 2005, a Succession Certificate was granted to the appellant against the Will of Gorden Wapshare. The respondent challenged the certificate, applying for its revocation. In 1993, Beatrice had moved an application for the grant of probate but died during the proceedings. The respondent never applied to be substituted as a legal heir, and the court held that the respondent could not apply for revocation as she was not a child of Edward Wapshare.

The High Court upheld the judgment regarding the non-maintainability of the application for revocation but referred the matter back to the sub-court regarding the court holding the application non-maintainable due to the matter being decided already. This led to the appeal.

The respondent described herself as the wife of the late A.J. Wheeler and the daughter of the late Beatrice Wapshare. Edward Wapshare’s name was notably absent, indicating that she was not a lineal descendant (offspring) of Edward Wapshare and therefore had no claim related to the Wapshare family.

Since the probate proceedings (proceedings to obtain a legal validation of the Will from the competent court) did not advance, the deceased was considered to have died without making any Will. Consequently, his property would devolve only to his legal heirs, excluding the respondent.

The court referred to Section 25 of the Indian Succession Act to understand the term “lineal descendant”:

"25. Lineal Consanguinity. (1) Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between two persons, one of whom is descended in a direct line from the other, as between a man and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and so upwards in the direct ascending line, or between a man and his son, grandson, great-grandson and so downwards in direct descending line. (2) Every generation constitutes a degree, either ascending or descending."

By referring to this provision, the court held that the respondent could not be considered a lineal descendant of the deceased and thus had no claim over the property.