Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav & Ors.
Background
Following the death of one Zorawar Singh, who had bequeathed self-acquired Delhi property by a Will and codicil, two rival civil suits were filed in Delhi: one by the respondents seeking a declaration based on the Will, and another by the appellant claiming entitlement by natural succession. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected the respondents' suit as not maintainable, holding that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act required them to first obtain probate or letters of administration before relying on the Will in court. A Division Bench reversed this, holding Section 213 did not apply, and directed the two suits to be clubbed for common evidence, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined Sections 213 and 57 of the Indian Succession Act together and held that the mandatory probate requirement under Section 213(1) applies to Wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Jains only where the Will-maker or the property falls within the erstwhile Bengal, Madras or Bombay jurisdictions (per Section 57(a) and (b)), not elsewhere. Since Delhi (part of the former Punjab, outside those three territories) was where both the testator and the property were situated, the probate requirement did not apply to this Will, consistent with a long line of Punjab & Haryana and Delhi High Court decisions and the Supreme Court's own earlier ruling in Clarence Pais v. Union of India. Finding no error in the Division Bench's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Not every Will needs court-granted probate before it can be relied upon in litigation: for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, the mandatory probate requirement under the Indian Succession Act applies only to Wills connected to the former Bengal, Madras or Bombay territories, and does not extend to Wills made in, or concerning property in, other parts of India such as Delhi.