BASANTI DEVI versus RAVIPRAKASH RAMPRASAD JAISWAL

BASANTI DEVI versus RAVIPRAKASH RAMPRASAD JAISWAL

The Supreme Court held that under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, revocation of probate may be justified if citation to all heirs is omitted, properties are not fully disclosed as required under Section 283(3), and agnates are recognized as heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The mandatory statutory requirements for notice and disclosure were not complied with, entitling the appellant to seek revocation and remittal of the matter.

Parties
Appellant: Basanti Devi; Respondent: RA Viprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remitted to Probate Court
Legal Topics
Revocation of Probate, Citation of Heirs, Application in Rem, Succession of Female Hindus
Succession Law Revocation of Probate Citation of Heirs Application in Rem Succession of Female Hindus

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basanti Devi

Appellant

RA Viprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application for revocation of grant of probate under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act is maintainable on the ground that appellant's name was not cited in the application for grant of probate
  2. 2 Whether agnates are heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
  3. 3 Whether citation must be served to all heirs under Bombay High Court Rules when properties are outside Maharashtra

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, revocation of probate may be justified if citation to all heirs is omitted, properties are not fully disclosed as required under Section 283(3), and agnates are recognized as heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The mandatory statutory requirements for notice and disclosure were not complied with, entitling the appellant to seek revocation and remittal of the matter.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remitted to Probate Court

Orders

  • Matter remitted to learned Single Judge of the Probate Court for fresh consideration
  • Costs awarded to the appellant