Procedure in contentious cases

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Sinnamani vs G. Vettivel

   Supreme Court of India 09 May 2012 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a statute (such as the Indian Trust Act) provides for filing a suit for certain purposes (e.g., Section 59 for beneficiary enforcement of trusts) and provides for filing original petitions for other purposes (e.g., Sections 72-73 for trustee management), the procedure prescribed by the statute must be strictly followed. An Original Petition filed in violation of this statutory procedure cannot be converted into a suit in the absence of an express enabling provision in the statute itself (such as exists in Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act but does not exist in the Trust Act). Courts cannot invoke general principles like the doctrine against hyper-technicalities or inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to circumvent the mandatory procedural distinctions established by the statute.

   On this section: Cited as example of legislation specifically providing for conversion of original petition into suit; Trust Act contains no such equivalent provision

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Krishna Kumar Birla vs Rajendra Singh Lodha

   Supreme Court of India 31 Mar 2008 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2008) 4 SCC 254

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   To sustain a caveat, a caveatable interest must be shown. The test required to be applied is: does the claim of grant of probate prejudice the caveator's right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the caveator asserts his right. A fundamental characteristic of probate proceedings is that whatever would be the interest of the testator, the same must be accepted and the rules laid down must be followed. Consequently, any person questioning the existence of title in respect of the estate or the capacity of the testator to dispose of the property by will on grounds outside the law of succession would be a stranger to the probate proceeding, inasmuch as none of such rights can effectively be adjudicated therein. A caveatable interest is an interest in the estate of the deceased to which the caveator would otherwise be entitled, subject to having a special interest therein. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concept of reversioner, agnate, and cognate interest in succession has been fundamentally altered. Only heirs specified in Classes I and II under the Act can claim succession. Distant relatives, family members, and executors of an earlier unprobated will do not have caveatable interest in the estate unless they are named as beneficiaries or have direct stake in the distribution. The existence of mutual wills or filing of suit to enforce mutual wills does not create caveatable interest in the original probate proceedings; such enforcement is remedy in equity through specific performance, not in probate court. A later will, even if in breach of mutual will agreement, is valid and probatable as probate court is concerned only with last will of testator.

   On this section: Provides procedure for contentious probate cases where caveators file affidavits and proceedings are converted to suit format. Court determines caveatable interest and proceeds accordingly.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.