N. NARASIMHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAN J., having found a conflict between Komalangiammal Sowbagiammal, 59 Mad LJ 529 : (AIR 1931 Mad 37) decided by a Division Bench and Jayakumar v. Ramarathnam,(1972) 1 Mad LJ 4 : (AIR 1972 Mad 212), of a single Judge, has referred the particular question, whether in a petition for probate a caveator can properly claim title in himself in conflict with that of the testator or testatrix.

(2.) THE scope of a probate petition is confined to an enquiry as to the disposing state of the mind of the testator or testatrix and the disposition of his or her property by will. Any caveat entered into will also be confined to the scope of the petition. A person who claims interest in the estate of the testatrix will have the locus standi to maintain the caveat, the scope of caveat enquiry being no more than what it is in that of the probate proceedings themselves. This proposition, which is elementary, is long since established, both on principle and by practice, of this Court on the probate side. Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, which concerns itself with the powers of the probate Court provides that it may issue citations calling upon all persons "claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration". The next section dealing with caveat provides that a caveat shall be made as nearly as circumstances admit in the form set forth in Schedule V. That Schedule is merely that 'Let nothing be done in the matter of the estate of A. B., late of ..deceased, who died on the ..day of .. at .. without notice to C. D. of. Reading these two provisions, it is explicit that citation is permissible in respect of a person claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased, the object of the notice being to let him have an opportunity to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. Once caveat is entered, no further steps should be taken without notice to the caveator. Our attention has been invited to Sections 220, 222, 232, and certain other provisions dealing with probate and letters of administration. But we do not think that except that they contain general provisions, they have any direct decisive application in deciding the question before us. The answer to the question will depend upon the interpretation to be placed on the words 'any interest in the estate of the deceased' in clause (c) and Section 283 (1). From Sowbagiammal v. Komalangiammal, 54 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1928 Mad 803) which was decided by Venkatasubba Rao J., and which was affirmed by Komalangiammal v. Sowbagiammal 59 Mad LJ 529 : (AIR 1931 Mad 37), the law has always been that in a probate proceeding a caveator will not be entitled to raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased. The interest in the estate of the deceased mentioned in Section 283 is but that interest which by citation a person called upon may claim to have in the estate of the deceased and not the interest which the deceased did not own, but the claimant coming into the picture by citation claims to be vested in himself. In other words, title of the testator or testatrix to the whole or any part of the property which is the subject -matter of disposition is entirely and necessarily outside the scope of probate proceedings and that question will have to be settled by a regular trial. That was what was pointed out to be the principle and practice of this Court by Venkatasubba Rao J. in 54 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1928 Mad 803). That was a fully considered judgment in which all the relative decided cases including Hanumantha Rao v. Latchamma 51 Mad LJ 563 : (AIR 1926 Mad 1193) were noticed and the learned Judge summed up the test for purposes of Section 283 (1) (c), as being that a person disputing the right of a testator to deal with property as his own, cannot be properly regarded as having an interest in the estate or the deceased. This view of the statutory provision was accepted to be the right view by two learned Judges in 59 Mad LJ 529 : (AIR 1931 Mad 37) who had occasion to consider 51 Mad LJ 563 : (AIR 1926 Mad 1193). That being so, Maharajan J. in (1972) 1 Mad LJ 4 : (AIR 1972 Mad 212) was bound by 59 Mad LJ 529 : (AIR 1931 Mad 37) and was not free to follow 51 Mad LJ 563 : (AIR 1926 Mad 1193). Though the question was not directly posed and answered in Iswardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi. AIR 1954 SC 280, the observation below is of some utility in the present context -

(3.) WE answer the reference accordingly and remit the matter of probate for a decision by the learned Judge, sitting on the probate side. Reference answered accordingly.