LI Network
Published on: February 10, 2024 at 12:59 IST
The Karnataka High Court has underscored that the mere absence of an appointed executor is not sufficient grounds to dismiss the grant of probate when the will is executed in favor of the beneficiary.
The Court, referring to Sections 222(2) and 234 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA), clarified that the right to apply for probate is not restricted solely to the named executor but can be pursued by other individuals depending on the circumstances.
In response to an appeal challenging the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss a probate petition, the Karnataka High Court observed that the lower Court made an error by rejecting the claim solely on the basis of the will lacking a named executor.
The Court emphasized that overlooking crucial facts, such as the registration of the will in favor of the appellants, was a critical oversight.
Advocates Sunil S. Rao and G. Panduranga represented the appellants in the case. The appellants sought probate for a property owned by Sannarangappa, claiming ownership rights through a registered will. Despite facing rejection of their application by the Tahsildar when attempting to transfer the property, the appellants requested probate.
The Trial Court dismissed the petition, relying on the ISA and stating that probate can only be granted to an executor named in the will.
The appellants argued that the Trial Court’s interpretation was flawed and pointed out that beneficiaries could seek probate under similar circumstances.
The High Court, framing the key issue, examined whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition based on the belief that probate could not be granted without naming an executor in the will.
The Karnataka High Court stressed that probate proceedings should focus on principles related to such proceedings rather than solely on the appointment of an executor.
After thorough consideration of the relevant provisions of the ISA and the specific circumstances, the Court held that Section 234 of the ISA permits persons other than the named executor to seek probate under certain conditions, as outlined in Section 222(2) and Section 234 of the Act.
The Court noted that the Trial Court failed to acknowledge that no party claimed interest in the will’s subject matter, and notices were duly published in newspapers without any claimants coming forward. While the will lacked an appointed executor, the Court emphasized that this alone should not be a basis for denying probate.
Drawing on prior cases, the Court highlighted that similar issues had been addressed, and the appellants, having proven the will through attesting witnesses, had the right to seek probate.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court held that the Trial Court’s approach was flawed, prompting intervention from the higher court. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and probate/succession certificate was granted in favor of the appellants.
Case Title: M. R. Mohan Kumar v NIL (2024:KHC:4508)
