Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Smt. Rukmani Devi & Others
Respondent: Narendra Lal Gupta
Hon’ble Justice D.A. Desai and D.P. Madon, JJ
Date Of Appeal: 1979
Date Of Judgement: Thu Sep 13 1984
C.P. Gupta died, leaving behind his wife, Ram Dulari, two sons, Kaloo Lal and Narendra Lal, and a daughter, Kamla Devi. After some time, Kaloo Lal also died, leaving his wife, Rukmani Devi, and their children (the appellants in the current case). Earlier, Ram Dulari had filed a partition suit (petition for property division) against Kaloo Lal, which ended with a Consent Decree. After her death, she left a will bequeathing all her property to Narendra Lal, who then tried to execute the Consent Decree (the parties in dispute mutually agreed to settle the case without proceeding further, which is recorded by the court of law). However, the appellants challenged the Will, arguing that since it was not granted with a probate (legal validation of a Will by a competent court), it could not be enforced. The executing court agreed to those arguments and stayed the proceedings until probate was granted. Later, the Will was probated in Ranchi, but the appellants objected the same, questioning the court’s jurisdiction and claiming that the Will was forged. They also pointed out that a civil case challenging the Will’s validity was still pending. The High Court dismissed their objections, ruling that a probate is a judgment in rem, meaning it is legally binding till it remains in force. As a result, the court allowed the execution of the Will to proceed, which lead the appellants to appeal this decision.
It has been held that the probate court had jurisdiction as the testator (the person who made the Will) was living in Mesra for 20 years preceding her death and was bequeathing property in Mesra, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Court of the Fifth Additional Judicial Commissioner. Since the Appellants did not challenge the Grant of Probate initially, it was questioned by the court whether they could now be permitted to raise doubts on the validity of the Will in different proceedings. It was thus held that the High Court was justified in reversing the decision of the executing court directing the respondent to lead evidence to prove the genuineness of the Will.
Court stated that “A probate granted by a competent court is conclusive of the validity of such Will until it is revoked and no evidence can be admitted to allege it except in a proceeding taken for revoking the probate. A decision of the probate court would be a judgment in rem (which would not only be binding on the parties but on the whole world). Therefore, a solemn duty is cast on the probate court.”
When the proceedings for execution of the Will began, the appellants contended that the Will could not be executed as it was not probated. When proceedings for the grant of probate began, they did not raise any contentions regarding the genuineness or validity of the Will. Such contentions were only raised before the executing court after the Will had been granted a probate. By relying on Surinder Kumar v Gian Chand [AIR 1957 SC 875], the Court held that the notice having been issued to the appellants and having been served upon them, their failure to enter a caveat (a formal notice to the court that no proceedings would be furthered without the presence of the person filing it) to contest the proceedings would preclude them from contesting the validity of the Will in other proceedings.
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.