Strangers to Probate: Bombay High Court Holds That Challengers of Testator's Title Have No Caveatable Interest, Cannot Seek Revocation

"Any person questioning the existence of title in respect of the estate or capacity of the testator to dispose of the property by will on ground outside the law of succession would be a stranger to the probate proceeding", In a significant ruling on the boundaries of probate jurisdiction and the doctrine of caveatable interest, the Bombay High Court has held that persons who question the title of a testator in bequeathed properties — rather than asserting any right of inheritance through the testator — are strangers to probate proceedings and cannot maintain an application for revocation of probate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while allowing the Civil Revision Application filed by the son-in-law of the deceased testator, also undertook a meticulous reconciliation of two conflicting Supreme Court judgments on caveatable interest — Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) and G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar (2008) — and laid down the governing principle for their application.

Background of the Case

Nalini alias Rajeshwari Nagarkar executed a Will dated 23 August 2005, bequeathing properties at Satara, including two houses at Shaniwar Peth and a plot at Kamathipura, Sadar Bazar, in favour of her son-in-law Sunil Waman Bhide (the Applicant). The remaining properties were bequeathed to her three children. After Rajeshwari's death on 8 November 2008, the Executor named in the Will obtained probate from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, on 13 December 2011.

Thereafter, Laxman Gopal Kanhere — Rajeshwari's brother — and his son Chandrahas filed Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2013 seeking revocation of the probate. Their case was that Rajeshwari had no title to the bequeathed properties at all, as their mother Radhabai's earlier Will of 1992 in favour of Rajeshwari had been superseded by a subsequent Will of 1997 executed in favour of Chandrahas. The Applicant raised a preliminary objection of maintainability, which the Trial Court rejected on both occasions — first in 2016, and again in 2022, following which the present Civil Revision Application was filed before the Bombay High Court.

Legal Issues and Arguments

The central legal question was whether a person who questions the title of the testator in the bequeathed property — as opposed to asserting a right of inheritance through the testator — possesses caveatable interest sufficient to maintain a revocation application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act.

The Applicant argued that the law was settled by the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Birla, which held that to sustain a caveat, a caveatable interest must be shown and that the test is whether the grant of probate prejudices the caveator's right by defeating some other line of succession through which the caveator asserts his rights. Any person questioning the title or capacity of the testator outside the law of succession is a stranger to probate proceedings.

The Respondents countered that the matter was governed by G. Gopal, wherein the Supreme Court had taken a broader view that even a slight interest in the estate of the testator entitles a person to file a caveat. They also argued that the probate itself was superfluous and without jurisdiction since the Will was executed at Pune and the properties were situated at Satara — outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

Court's Observations and Judgment

On the Conflict Between Krishna Kumar Birla and G. Gopal

Justice Marne undertook a detailed examination of the conflict between the two coordinate Supreme Court Benches. He noted that G. Gopal was rendered on 3 September 2008, barely five months after Krishna Kumar Birla on 31 March 2008, and without noticing the earlier judgment. He observed that both judgments in fact share a common underlying principle: a person who is likely to succeed to the estate of the testator upon revocation of probate can have caveatable interest. The discord arises from the broad observation at the end of paragraph 5 in G. Gopal that "a person who has even a slight interest in the estate of the testator is entitled to file caveat."

Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar — that when two judgments of the Supreme Court appear inconsistent, the High Court must reconcile them and follow the one whose facts are more in accord with the case at hand — Justice Marne reconciled the two judgments thus:

"In G. Gopal, the case did not involve challenge to the title of testator in respect of the bequeathed properties. On the other hand the judgment in Krishna Kumar Birla is a direct authority on the principle that if the caveator challenges or questions the title of the testator in respect of bequeathed properties, he cannot have any caveatable interest."

The Court noted that in G. Gopal, the caveators were grandchildren of the testator who claimed the estate based on a settlement deed executed by the testator himself — meaning they would have succeeded to the estate through the testator had the probate been revoked. The present case was entirely different: the Respondents were asserting that Rajeshwari was never the owner of the bequeathed properties. There was no possibility of them inheriting through the testator — their claim was adverse to the testator herself.

On the Limited Jurisdiction of the Probate Court

The Court reiterated the well-settled legal position on the scope of probate proceedings, relying on the Supreme Court's own statement in Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon:

"It is not competent for the Probate Court to determine whether the testator had or had not the authority to dispose of the suit properties... The Probate Court is also not competent to determine the question of title to the suit properties nor will it go into the question whether the suit properties bequeathed by the will were joint ancestral properties or acquired properties of the testator."

The Court observed that the functions of a Probate Court are confined to examining the due execution, attestation and testamentary capacity of the testator. A challenge to the testator's title falls entirely outside the purview of probate proceedings and must be adjudicated in a substantive suit — which, as the Court noted, the Respondents had already instituted.

On Whether the Probate Was Without Jurisdiction

The Respondents argued that probate was not required — and was even impermissible — for a Will executed at Pune relating to properties in Satara, both outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The Court rejected this contention as misconceived in law. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Mahesh N. Bhat v. Mark Uppaluri, the Court held:

"All that this section does is to specify the class of Wills of which probate is necessary... This does not mean that Probate cannot be granted of other Wills that fall outside the class... For such a Will, probate is merely optional. The section does not say that probate of such a Will cannot be granted."

The Court accordingly held that the grant of probate in respect of a Will executed at Pune relating to properties at Satara was not invalid merely because such a Will was not mandatorily required to be probated.

On the Applicability of Saroj Agarwalla

The Court also noted that in Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain (2017), a later two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had expressly followed the ratio of Krishna Kumar Birla and applied the same test: "Does the claim of grant of probate prejudice 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 reinforced that the legal position was settled by Krishna Kumar Birla, not displaced by G. Gopal.

Setting aside the Trial Court's order dated 20 December 2022 and holding Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2013 not maintainable, the Bombay High Court dismissed the revocation application in its entirety. The Court ruled that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 — by seeking to question the title of the testator rather than claiming through her — are strangers to the probate proceeding and possess no caveatable interest. The issue of title, already made subject matter of a civil suit, must be adjudicated there and not in the guise of a revocation application.

The ruling authoritatively reconciles two conflicting Supreme Court decisions on caveatable interest in Indian probate law and draws a bright line: the Probate Court is not a forum for title disputes, and those who contest a testator's ownership — rather than a testator's right to Will — have no standing to seek revocation of probate.

Date of Decision: 17 March 2026