Sunil Gupta Versus Kiran Girhotra and ORS-Indian Succession Act, 1925—Sections 263 and 307—Parties to proceedings—A transferee of a property during the pendency of a proceeding is not a necessary party—Purchaser of a property belonging to the deceased testator is not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the probate proceedings.
where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth
“Questions of title are not decided in proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration. Whatever therefore might have happened in those proceedings would not establish the title…. Now it is not in dispute that the grant of probate or letters of administration does not establish that the person making the Will was the owner of the property […]
The said suit, wherein the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant by Avarani Bose is questioned, has been pending without a decision for more than a decade. The first respondent has not even chosen to appear in this appeal nor explained the delay in securing probate, thereby lending credence to the claim of the appellant […]
Even otherwise ordinarily a transferee pendent lite without leave of the court cannot be impleaded as a party
Under the indian succession act, 1925, chapter I of Part IX of the act provides for grant of Probate and/or Letters of Administration.
Supreme Court In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dasi [1955 AIR 566, 1955 SCR (2) 270] a question was raised whether previous judgment of criminal court convicting the son for murder of the testator father would be relevant in the subsequent proceeding for revocation of grant of probate. There also a question that fell for consideration was whether the son […]
Keywords: Caveatable Interest-Revocation of Probate-Mutual will⇒ All persons claiming to have any interest’ are to be understood in slightly liberal sense. In my considered opinion, for issuance of citation, nature of claim or interest of the person concerned is not to be examined, on the anvil of genuineness or legitimacy. Anyone’s mere claim is sufficient to receive citation, for example, […]
It is well established that the probate court while granting probate in respect of a will decides only the question of the genuineness and validity of the will and does not go into the question of title much less decide the said question in respect of any of the items said to belong to the said estate.