Case Brief (Rewritten): Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain

Citation: (2017) 14 SCC 285

Name of parties:

Appellants: Saroj Agarwalla (Dead) Thr. LR Abhishek Agarwalla (Sister of testator)

Respondent: Yasheel Jain (Nephew of testator)

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice  Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ

Date Of Appeal: 2009

Date Of Judgement: Mon Oct 24 2016

Facts of Case

This case is about an appeal arising out of the same proceedings for grant of probate of a Will (legal validation of a Will by court) alleged to be the last Will of the appellant’s brother (Jagdish Prasad Tulshan). Yasheel Jain filed a caveat (formal warning that no proceedings must further without the party filing it being heard) claiming to be the son of the testator’s late sister and was a beneficiary under an alleged prior Will. On the other side, Malati Tulshal filed a separate  caveat (formal warning that no proceedings must further without the party filing it being heard) claimed to be the testator’s second wife. The Appellant argued that Malati was never legally married to the testator, so she had no right to challenge the Will (caveatable interest). The appelants’s prayer to reject both the caveats was dismissed, on the ground that there exists a prior Will and on the grounds of an apparent union between the testator (the person who made the Will)  and Malati Tulshal. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed two appeals which were decided jointly.

Issues Before Court

• Whether the respondents have caveatable interest ?

Judgement

The Court dismissed the appeals and held that the High Court was right in rejecting the appellant's arguments against the caveats filed by the respondents. The Court prescribed a test to be applied to determine if a person has caveatable interest (right to claim): Does the claim of grant of probate impair the respondent’s right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the respondent as a caveator asserted his/her right? This test is to be applied to determine caveatable interest on the basis of the facts of the case at hand.

Key Takeaways

The Court also answered the questions raised regarding the decisions of the court being on the basis of primary facts. By depending on prior decisions, the court states that the probate court is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. Questions as to the contents of the Will, the validity of bequests, etc. do not fall under the jurisdiction of the probate court. Thus, the decisions recorded as being on the face of it is good in law.