Facts of the case
During the pendency of a suit for probate (legal validation of the Will provided by the competent court), which had been ongoing for 7 years, the sole executor died. The executor had filed a petition for probate that was challenged by the appellant (the original defendant). The proceeding was converted into a testamentary suit (suit where the Will is contested) upon the contest, and evidence was complete and ready for final hearing when the executor died. The respondent applied for substitution, which was allowed, and the proceeding was converted into one for Letters of Administration (LOA). The appellant argued that the probate proceedings should have ended with the death of the executor and that a fresh petition should have been filed. An appeal was preferred against the aforementioned decision.
Issue before the court
- Whether a sole beneficiary under a will can seek substitution in place of an executor who has died during the pendency of a testamentary proceeding ?
Judgement
The court dismissed the appellant's contention and upheld the decision of the learned single judge. The court reasoned that although probate is granted to an executor named in a Will, if such an executor is unavailable or unwilling to act, a beneficiary may be allowed to prove the Will. The court noted that both the probate and Letters of Administration proceedings have the same essence, which is to determine the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. In the absence of legislation preventing the conversion of the proceedings, the court refused to accept a submission that would delay the administration of the estate and result in multiplicity of proceedings. This decision was affirmed in Vatsala Srinivasan v. Shyamala Raghunathan, (2016) 13 SCC 253.