Case Brief (Rewritten): Ramani U. Krishnan v. Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua

Citation: 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 232

Name of parties:

Appellants: Ramani U. Krishnan

Respondent: Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice P. Sathasivam and S.K. Krishnan, JJ

Date Of Appeal: 2000

Date Of Judgement: Tue Mar 22 2005

Facts of Case

Dr. O. Francis executed a Will on 26.06.1997 and died on 01.07.1997. The Respondent filed for a grant of probate. During her lifetime, Dr. O. Francis (the testator) had entered into an agreement to sell property to the Appellant for which payment was partially made. The Appellant challenged the grant of probate, arguing that the Will was fabricated and claiming that she has a rightful claim over the property in question under the above said agreement. The Respondent countered by arguing that the Appellant, a third party, lacked caveatable interest (interest in the estate) and had no legal standing to seek revocation of the probate

Issues Before Court

• Whether the application filed by the Appellant, a third party, for revocation of the probate granted on 02.09.1997 is maintainable, and is the learned single judge was correct in dismissing the application ?

Judgement

The Court held that the Appellant did not establish a caveatable interest (valid claim) necessary for seeking revocation of the probate (legal validation provided for a Will by the competent court). The Court noted that a contract for sale of immovable property, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not create any interest in or charge on the property. Therefore, the Appellant's right to seek revocation was not recognized. The Court stated that if the sale agreement was legally valid, it would apply to the deceased's property. Instead of trying to apply for revocation of  the probate, the Appellant could file a lawsuit to enforce the agreement and claim the property (specific performance).

Key Takeaways