Summary
A daughter sought revocation of probate granted without citation to her mother on the strength of a disputed consent certificate. The Supreme Court held that delay could not be imputed without evidence of earlier knowledge, and the probate court should have exercised its citation discretion carefully where an old unregistered will disinherited a legal heir. The mechanical grant without verifying consent was revoked and probate proceedings revived, leaving purchaser and title contentions for appropriate consideration.
Issues
- Whether the revocation request was defeated by delay without proof of earlier knowledge.
- Whether absence of citation and unverified consent justified revoking this probate.
- Whether purchaser and title rights required determination in this appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 283, Indian Succession Act, 1925Citation is discretionary, but discretion must be exercised judicially and carefully. On these facts citation to the disinherited heir was required rather than mechanical reliance on the disputed consent. (¶¶ 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Chapter XXXV Rules 5A, 9 and 12, Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1914Rule 9’s consent exception concerns letters of administration, not probate. Rule 5A identifies intestate successors and Rule 12 governs citation procedure for both kinds of grant. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
Held
- Neither the appellant nor her mother was shown to know of the probate earlier. Prompt application after inspection of the records could not be rejected as inordinately delayed. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The old unregistered will, disputed consent and later partition pleadings which omitted probate called for caution. Grant without citation or verification of the supposed consent was unsustainable in these circumstances. (¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Revocation revived the probate proceeding rather than finally determining the will, conveyance or purchaser’s rights. Those contentions remained for lawful consideration. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39)
Result
Appeal allowed. Both High Court orders rejecting revocation were set aside, probate of 4 June 1982 revoked, and PLA No. 90 of 1982 revived for decision according to law. Expeditious disposal was requested. Parties were to bear their own costs.