The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to revoke a probate granted thirteen years ago, ruling that the application was hopelessly barred by limitation and that the appellants lacked a caveatable interest due to the valid adoption of the beneficiary.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, observing that the appellants had admitted the adoption in prior proceedings and could not re-agitate the issue in a probate revocation plea.
Background of the Case
The appeal, OSA.No. 61 of 2023, challenged the order dated March 10, 2022, passed in Application No. 885 of 2022 in O.P.No. 638 of 2008.
The original petition (O.P.No. 638 of 2008) was filed by the first respondent, T.S. Prakash Chand Gang, seeking probate of a Will dated May 16, 1990, executed by Meena Bai, who passed away on December 17, 1998. Meena Bai’s husband, K.C. Mank Chand, had predeceased her in 1989. The couple had no biological children but had adopted the second respondent, P. Gyanchand, via a registered adoption deed dated September 26, 1990.
The Court had granted probate of the Will on February 10, 2009. Thirteen years later, in 2022, the appellants—Mrs. Leela Kumari (widow of the son of K.C. Mank Chand’s brother) and H. Nirmal Chand—filed an application to revoke the probate. The learned Single Judge dismissed this application, holding that the appellants had no caveatable interest and that the probate proceedings could not be converted into a title suit.
Arguments of the Parties The counsel for the appellants contended that documents establishing the second respondent as the adopted son were “created” and that the adoption “had never taken place.” They further argued that the title documents of the property were in their possession.
The appellants claimed that as the widow and son of the brother’s son of the testatrix’s husband, they had a caveatable interest and should have been impleaded in the original probate petition. They also cited pending litigations between the parties.
Court’s Observations and Decision
- Admission of Adoption in Prior Suits: The Division Bench noted that in a separate partition suit (C.S.No. 167 of 1997), the appellants (arrayed as defendants) had filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the parties as described in the plaint, which specifically identified P. Gyanchand as the adopted son of Meena Bai.
The Court cited Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which states:
“Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact needs to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing… or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.”
The Bench observed, “Once there has not been a specific denial of the issue of adoption, the same cannot be raised again in subsequent proceedings.”
- Scope of Probate Proceedings: The Court reiterated that probate proceedings are restricted to examining the valid execution and attestation of the Will. “The title of the property cannot be examined and an application for probate cannot be converted as a suit for title,” the Bench held.
- Limitation Period: Regarding the delay, the Court observed that the probate was granted on February 10, 2009, while the revocation application was filed in 2022, nearly 13 years later.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Mrs. Lynette Fernandes Vs. Mrs. Gertie Mathias, the Court held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to applications for revocation of probate. The Court noted:
“Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court… The Indian Succession Act is a special law and the ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case.”
The Court found that no explanation was provided for the delay, rendering the application “hopelessly barred by limitation.”
- Caveatable Interest and Effect of Adoption: The Court referred to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which states that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive parents for all purposes from the date of adoption.
The Bench concluded:
“Thus owing to the adoption, the second respondent must be deemed to be the son of the testatrix Meena Bai. The appellants, as remote Class II legal heirs of the testatrix stood ousted and cannot claim to have a caveatable interest.”
- Grounds for Revocation: The Court examined Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which outlines “just cause” for revocation, such as defective proceedings or fraud. The Bench ruled that none of the grounds under Section 263 were attracted or could be canvassed by the appellants.
The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mrs. Leela Kumari & Anr. Vs. T.S. Prakash Chand Gang & Anr.
Case No.: OSA.No. 61 of 2023
Coram: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
