KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 640

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND OTHERS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 5 S. C. R. 640 )- KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 2008) MARCH 31, 2008 (S. 8. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. ) .. Succession- Indian Succession Act, 1925- Section 2(c), 2(h), 283, 284, 285 & 286 - Calcutta High Court Rules, 1940 - Rule 4, 5(a), 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30- Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 73 - Probate And Administration Act, 1881 - Section 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 & 83. Caveatable interest means an interest in the estate of the deceased to which the caveator would otherwise be entitled to and having a special interest therein - Caveatable interest may arise only after suit for enforcement of mutual Will is + decreed. Manner of filing an application for grant of probate - Jurisdiction of Probate Court - Discussed. Construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person to whom a citation is to be issued or a caveator, must have some interest in the estate of the testator. ,.

Judgment rendered in a probate proceedings - Not determinative of the question of title. ... )l Scope and applicability of Section 284 of Indian Succession Act. Interpretation of Statutes: Purposive construction to be resorted to having regard to the purport and object of the Act. ,__ While interpreting the provisions of a statute, one must + also bear in mind the admitted legal position that a probate · AND OTHERS proceeding should not be converted into a title suit. i .. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S. 122 - High Court could frame Rules under the power conferred to it- Constitution of India, Article 227. Precedent - What could be done and has not been done by a Court of equity does not create precedent. Words & Phrases: "Ceasing to be" - "contention" - Meaning of PDB and MPB were very wealthy persons. and owned an industrial empire known as Birla Group of Industries. Both of them had executed mutual wills on identical terms on or about 10. 5.

1981 bequeathing his/her respective estate(s). Later, the wills were revoked and another set of mutual wills were executed on 13. 7. 1982 and four executors were appointed in each set of will. -t MPB died on 30. 7. 1990. On or about 18. 4. 1999, PDB executed her last will bequeathing her entire estate to tlJe first respondent RSL, appointing him as the sole executor. PDB died on 3. 7. 2004. RSL filed an application for grant of probate. The appellants in the connected appeals filed caveats. RSL took out an application seeking discharge of caveats entered into by KKB, BKB, GPB and YB before the High Court. .. , ~ A suit was filed by the surviving executors of the 1982 wills for a declaration that RSL was not entitled to deal with the assets of PDB in any manner contrary to and inconsistent with terms of the 1982 will. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the application of discharge of caveats filed by KKB, BKB and YB; caveat filed by GPB was retained.

Application filed + for discharge of caveat of RSL was also dismissed. ,. )- Appeals were filed before the High Court. Cross objections were filed by RSL against retaining the caveat filed by KKB, SKB and YB as also the appointment of YB as the executor of MPB. The appeals and the cross objections were dismissed. Hence the appeals. On the basis of the contentions raised by the parties, + the question involved in the appeals is what is a cavetable interest within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act vis-a-vis the rules framed by the Calcutta High Court in the year 1940. Allowing Civil Appeal No. 2278 of 2008 filed by RSL challenging the appointment of YB, and dismissing the other appeals, the Court HELD: 1. 1 A suit in respect of property over which probate would have effect, must have a direct nexus with the estate of the testator and not to enforce a right in respect of the application of the estate of the testator + under another will.

Right to maintain a suit must be independent of the wills sought to be probated. No legal right accrues under an unprobated Will except in case where taking of probate is not mandatory. [Para 76] [683-D-E] '. 1. 2 A suit which would be maintainable must have ·something to do with the estate of the testator. Inheritance by Will itself may be a subject matter of contention. Whether the interest claimed by the caveator is an ,.. A established one or a bare claim must satisfy the test that there exists an interest in the estate of the testator and the same is not adverse thereto. [Para 78] [684-D] Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera (1990) 3 SCC 333; Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardayal Singh Dhillon and others 2007 (12) SCALE 282; Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 and Basanti + Devi v. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal (2007) 12 SCALE 542 - relied on. AND on:ERS Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass ILR 17 Calcutta 48; Prijoshah Bhikaji v.

Pestonji Merwanji 12 Born LR 366; Rahamtullah Sahib v. Rama Rau & Anr. ILR 17 Madras 373; Nikunj Kumar Lohia v Narayan Prasad Garodia & Others 1996 ,1) CHN 205; Goods of Mohammad Bashir (deceased) AIR 1964 Cal 34; Smt. Namita Singha v. Joydeb Chandra Paul AIR 2006 Cal 230; M. S. Saraswathi v. M. S. Selvadurai & Anr. (1997) 3 LW 541 (Mad); Mrs. Perviz Sarosh Batliwal/a & Anr. v. Mrs. Viloo Plumber & Anr. AIR 2000 Born 189; Rajiv Ramprasad Gupta v. Rustom Sam Boyee AIR 2003 Born 242; Nobeen Chander Sil and others v. Bhobosoondari Debee ILR 6 Calcutta 460; G. Jayakumar v. R. Ramaratnam AIR 1972 Mad 212; Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaran Chandra Biswas and others AIR 1932 Calcutta 734 and Gourishankar Chattoraj v. Smt. Satyabati Debi AIR 1931 Calcutta 470 referred to. 2.

1 Two sisters of MPB being alive (one of them is -+ since deceased), indisputably in the event the application for grant of probate of RSL in respect of the 1999 Will is refused they will have an interest in the estate of the testatrix. The right of the said sisters of MPB being definite and clear, it is not a case where it is necessary to apply the bare possibility or the common ancestor test. [Para 93] [689-C-D] 2. 2 Both MPB and PDB claimed their interest in certain companies. The subject matter of the Will is not the , ancestral property over which the caveators claim any • interest.

It is one thing to say that the subject matter of the will is 'coparcenary' or a 'joint family property' in which case the larger concept of interest in the agnates would apply, but it is another thing to say that if people are available who would otherwise represent the interest of the estate and against whom citations have been issued, others who have no interest would also be entitled to enter a caveat. [Para 94] [689-D-F] Brindaban Chandra Shaha v. Sureshwar Shaha Parmanick and others 10 Cal. LJ 263 and Gourishankar Chattoraj v. Smt. Satyabati Debi AIR 1931 Cal 470 - held inapplicable. Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraj Saha v. Sara/a Sundari Dassya wlo Hara/a/ Saha AIR 1940 Calcutta 296 - referred to. + 3. A Will is executed when the owner of a property forms an opinion that his/ her estate should not devolve upon the existing heirs according to the law governing intestate succession.

When, thus, a person who would have otherwise succeeded to the estate of the testator, would ordinarily have a caveatable interest, any other person must ordinarily show a special interest in the estate. Such a special interest may be a creditor of the deceased. But, the same would not mean that even if the estate of the deceased is being represented by the legal heirs, caveat can be entertained at the instance of a person + who has no real interest therein or in other words would merely have a contingent interest. [Para 97, 98] [689-C-F] Radharaman Chowdhuri and others vs. Gopa/ Chandra • Chakravarty AIR 1920 Calcutta 459 and Sara/a Sundari Dassya v. Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraf Saha (Firm) AIR 1944 PC 11 - referred to. 4. A transferee pendente lite without the leave of the court would not have a caveatable interest and as such cannot be impleaded as a party. A person cannot also be ..

impleaded as a party even on an apprehension that those who have a caveatable interest and to whom citations have been made would not take any interest in the litigation. [Para 99] [689-F-G] Jagdish Chander v. State & Anr. 1988 RLR 678 and Sunil Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra & Ors. 2007 (12) SCALE 59 - referred to. + AND OTHERS 5. A statute must be interpreted having regard to the purport and object of the Act. The doctrine of purposive construction must be resorted to in a case of this nature. The court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable legislator. In so doing, it would not be permissible for the court to construe the provisions in such a manner which would destroy the very purpose for which the same was + enacted. The principles in regard to the approach of the Court in interpreting the provisions of a statute with the change in the societal condition must also be borne in mind. [Para 104] [693-B-C; 694-F] New Indian Assurance co: v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr.

2007 (14) SCALE 556; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 81, para 22 and Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association of India & Ors. (2007) 13 SCALE 762 - relied on. 6. 1 The decisions which were rendered prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, thus, may not be of much relevance. Now, if on the interpretation of law, as then stood, a reversioner or a distant relative who could have succeeded to the interest of the testator was entitled to file a caveat, they would not be now, as the law of inheritance and succession is governed by Parliamentary Act. [Para 106] [695-E-F] 6. 2 Directly or indirectly the appellants and in particular KKB is questioning the title or disposing power of the testator, which is impermissible in a probate proceeding. Appellants, in fact, have been prevaricating their stand from proceeding to proceeding. They have been raising various contentions which are wholly i~permissible in law. [Para 107] [695-G] 6.

3 If anybody and everybody including a busy body or an interloper is found to be entitled to enter a caveat and oppose, grant of a probate, then Sections 283(1)(c) and 284 of the 1925 Act would have been differently worded. Such an interpretation would lead to an anomalous situation. It is, therefore, not possible to accede to the submission that caveatable interest should be construed very widely. [Para 109] [696-C] 6. 4 A caveatable interest is not synonymous with the 8 word 'contention'. A 'contention' can be raised only by a person who has a caveatable interest. The dictionary meaning of 'contention', therefore; in the aforementioned context cannot have any application in a proceeding under the 1925 Act. While interpreting the provisions of a statute, one must also bear in mind the admitted legal position that a probate proceeding should not be permitted to be converted into a title suit.

It should not be permitted to become an unchartered field to be trespassed into by persons even if he is not affected by testamentary disposition. [Para 110 and 111] [696-D-F] 7. Section 284 of the 1925 Act only provides for a + forum and nothing more. It has nothing to do with qualification. Drawing attention to the decisions prevailing prior to coming into force of the 1925 Act, as also the decision of the Bombay High Court it was contended that the legislature having not changed the wordings of the earlier statute despite judicial interpretation of the terminologies thereof, must be held to have not intended to rectify the same. It is not necessary to go into the said question as the decisions upon which reliance has been placed are either not good law or not relevant for the present purpose. [Para 113, 114] [696-H; 697-A-C] Pirajshah Bikhaji & Others v. Pestonji Merwanji (1910) ILR 34 Bombay 459 - referred to. 8.

The Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court provide for determination of the issue of caveatable interest as a preliminary issue. There is no reason as to why the High Court, in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, AND OTHERS could not frame such Rules. After coming into force of the Constitution such Rules can also be framed by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the contention is to be accepted that there being no such provision in the Act for determination of such an issue as preliminary s issue, the High Court could not have framed the Rules, This Court is of the opinion that in a similar situation this Court also could not direct listing of the writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for preliminary hearing in terms of the Supreme Court Rules.

The Court having regard to its general power as also the power under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure can decide the matter by framing preliminary issues in regard to the maintainability or otherwise of the application. It is a rule of procedure and not of substance. 0 A court is entitled to dismiss a lis at the threshold if it is found not maintainable. The Court even in absence of any rule must take the precaution of not indulging in wasteful expenditure of its time at the instance of the litigants who have no case at all. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the Rules. [Para 115] [697-D-H; 698-A] 9. 1 A Will by its nature is revocable. It is the last desire of the testator. Till he breathes his last, he will have a final say. In short, the latter Will revoking the earlier Will would be probated.

It is one thing to say that the agreement between the parties to the purported mutual Will would not affect any agreement or arrangement on the application of the latter Will or the estate of the testator must be administered in terms of such agreement. [Para 116] [698-C-D] 9. 2 Despite the existence of a mutual Will, the representative under the latter Will will take the property. \ He, however, takes the property subject to the terms of the Mutual Will. Whether there exists any such agreement enforceable either in equity or by way of a suit for specific performance, will have to be considered only in the event the probate is granted and not prior thereto. [Para 116] [698-E-F] Halsbury's Laws ofEngland, Fourth Edition, Volume 50, page 108; Lewin on Trusts, Seventeenth Edition, pages 270- 271; Theobald on Wills, Sixteenth edition, pages 26, 27 (Paras 2. 09 & 2. 11) and Williams, Mortimer and Sunnucks on Executors, Administrators and Probate, 18th edition, pages 131-132 - referred to.

10. What could be done and has not been done by a court of equity does not create a precedent. It does not even have a persuasive value. In this country, we are bound to follow the law laid down under the statute or the decision which create binding precedents. An observation made by a Court of Probate would not 0 persuade this Court to hold that the High Court should have taken recourse to "advance from the region of testamentary disposition into that of contracts and trusts and to declare certain trusts upon the footing of contract" which could be done by the Chancery Division. [Para 123] [701-C-D] Kuppuswami Raja and another v. Perumal Raja and Others AIR 1964 Madras 291 - distinguished. Walker and Another v. Gaskill and Others [1914] P. 192 - referred to. American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Vol. 79, page 850 and Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. XCVll, pages 304 to 312 - referred to. 11.

A Will made in prejudice of an agreement will nevertheless be effective as a Will as it is by its very nature and by its very essence a revocable instrument. A subsequent infringing . Will would be valid even if it + revokes an earlier Mutual Will. Similarity of the terms would not be enough to establish the necessary agreement. . ·i ~··. ' AND OTHERS Whether a legatee has taken any benefit under the alleged Wills of 1982 would, however, be relevant. [Para 132] [705-E-H] Dilharshankar C. Bhachech v. Controller of Estate Duty (1986) 1 SCC 701 and Shiva Nath Prasad v. State of WB. and Others (2006) 2 SCC 757 - referred to. Branchflower et al v. Massey 208 P. 2d 341; Birmingham and Others v. Renfrew and Others 57 C. L. R. 666 and Re Dale (deceased) Proctor v. Dale (1993) 4 All ER 129 - referred to. 12. 1 It is too far fetched a submission that a person having a remote family connection or as an agnate is entitled to file a caveat.

A reversioner or an agnate or family member can maintain a caveat only when there is a possibility of his inheritance of the property in the event the probate of the Will is not granted. If there are heirs 0 intestate who are alive, entertaining of a caveat on the part of another family member or a reversioner or an agnate or cognate would never arise. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has brought about a sea change in the matter of inheritance and succession. Agnate or cognates are, thus, recognized as heirs. They may be the erstwhile members of a nuclear family. So far as heirs and legal representatives of the family are concerned, the Hindu Succession Act clearly lays down five classes of heirs, Sisters of husband belong to Class II heir. They succeeded to the interest of MPB in 2004 on the death of PDB. Appellants accepted the said fact but contended that as the life of the said heirs was uncertain they, thus, have a caveatable interest.

It has been accepted that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the successors of PDB. It is an indisputable case of intestacy having regard to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. [Para 133, 134, 135] [706-A-F] t 12. 2 Inheritance to an estate never remains in abeyance. In the event of death of the sisters of MPB, their heirs and legal representatives would inherit the property in their own right and not as the heirs of MPB. The dispute regarding intestacy does not change the law of succession and inheritance. As Agnates KKB, BKB, YB and GPB also claimed caveatable interest as agnates. Entry 2 of Class II of the Schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act in this case would not bring them into 8 the picture, as agnates will acquire an interest only when there is no heir of either Class I or Class II. When there exists Class II heirs, the appellants would not have any real interest in the property. The property upon the death of Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt.

Radha Devi Mohatta would pass on to their legal heirs. Appellants being not the heirs of MPB or PDB have no caveatable interest. [Para 137, 138] [707-A-D] 13. 1 The theory of looking after the spiritual wellbeing of the deceased soul by the near relatives has no application for the purpose of judging the validity or otherwise of a Will; more so, after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as in terms thereof the concept of succession to the estate of a deceased on the said consideration has lost its relevance. [Para 139] [707-E] 13. 2 The doctrine of 'larger circle of the caveators as being members of the Birla family' and to protect the spiritual interest does not convert a non-existent interest into a caveatable interest. Such a question had not been raised even in the affidavits of the appellants. [Para 140] [707-F-G] 14. The affidavit of KKB also reiterates the contents of the plaint.

No contention, however, has been raised that they have a caveatable interest keeping in view the spiritual life of MPB and the testatrix as a member of the family or otherwise. Similar affidavits have been filed by others. The sisters are also supporting the Birla family. f The claim of acquiring cavetable interest on the said basis, thus, is wholly unacceptable. [Para 141] [709-H; 710-A-B] AND OTHERS ~ 15. 1 A right to claim pre-emption is not a right in the estate. It creates an interest in the property. It does not create an interest in succession. If such a right has been created by an agreement, the same can be enforced only in the event any contingency in that behalf takes place. Will ·is not a transfer for enforcement of a right of preemption under a contract. It must be enforced by a suit. [Para 142] [710-C-D] 15. 2 KKB, BKB and GPB claimed caveatable interest 1 as co-owners of 1/5 h share in Kumaon Orchards, two other co-owners being PB and SKB.

SKB does not claim any caveatable interest in the estate of PDB. Even a person claiming an interest in the property of the testator by reason of an agreement for sale would not have a caveatable interest on the premise that such an agreement would be binding both upon the executor as also upon the heirs of the deceased (in the event, probate is not granted). The same principle would apply herein. Right of pre-emption, if any, is not affected by grant of· probate. A right of pre-emption would arise only when a voluntary transfer is made for consideration in favour of a stranger and not prior thereto. [Para 143] [711-D-F] 15. 3 Right of a co-owner is not affected by testamentary disposition. Indisputably, the object of conferring the right on a co-sharer or owner of an adjacent immovable property is to exclude strangers from acquiring interest in an immovable property as a co-sharer • or to keep objectionable strangers away from the neighbourhood.

The same by itself does not constitute a caveatable interest. [Para 145] [711-G-H; 712-A] Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 249, Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991) 2 SCC 128 and Sri Audh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 417 - referred to. t 16. 1 Will takes effect after the death of testator. Rights and obligations of an executor of a Will arise only then. No right is created in the executor during the life time of the testator. Appointment of a testator and appointment of trustee stand completely on different footings. [Para 150] [713-B] 16. 2 A person named as an executor under a Will cannot claim any right to act as an executor until the death of the testator. He has to survive him. He has to accept the office as an executor expressly or by conduct. The term "ceasing to be" thus necessarily means assumption of office of executor and thereafter ceasing to hold such office, by renouncement or removal or death, etc. [Para 151] [713-C-D] 16.

3 An executor must first become an executor. As MPB predeceased PDB, he never became an executor. If 0 he did not become an executor, the question of filling up of any vacancy would not arise. For the aforementioned purpose, it may be assumed that the 1982 Will was valid. As MPB could never become an executor, BKB's appointment does not confer on him a caveatable interest. An appointment of an executor ordinarily is the function of a court in terms of Section 301 of the 1925 Act. This Court, need not go into the question as to whether his appointment was legal or not, but, only notice that even in the deed of appointment, there is nothing to show that the necessary ingredients for appointment of B. K. Birla by the surviving executors had been made out as it was • not stated that the original executor had seized to hold office. [Para 160, 161] [718-A-C] 16. 4 The office of executor under the 1982 Will does not carry any remuneration therewith.

The power to appoint an executor was dependent upon any executor ceasing to be one. The condition precedent has not been fulfilled. In the instant case, MPB had never become the executor, hence, ttie question of his "ceasing to be an AND OTHERS executor" does not arise. [Para 162] [718-D-E] 16. 5 Appellants are not the legatees of the said Will. They are not the beneficiaries thereunder. They being merely executors, would not clothe them with a right to lodge a caveat as by reason thereof they did not derive any caveatable interest in the estate of PDB. [Para 163] [718-F] Jnanadndra Nath Mukherjee and another v. Jitendra Nath Mukherjee and others AIR 1928 Cal. 275; Sri Raja Kakadapudi Venkata Sudarshana Narasayyamma and others v. Andhra Bank Ltd. , Vijayawada and others, AIR 1960 AP 273; Ramautar Singh v. Ramsundari Kur. , AIR 1959 Pat 585; Leo Sequiera v. Magdalene Sequiers Bai and others, AIR 1971 Mysore 143 and Smt. Usharani Roy v. Smt. Hemlata Roy AIR 1946 Cal. 40 - relied on.

Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Company (1899) 1 LR. Ch. D. 775; Re Lighton ER (1 HAGG. ECC) 569 and RE Henrietta Johnson ER (1 SW&TR-18) 609 - referred to. Williams on Executors, 15th Edition page 34 - referred to. 17. GPB was held to have caveatable interest on the premise that he was named as an executor. He, therefore, has rightly been held to have a caveatable interest. An application for grant of probate of 1982 Will is also pending. Therein a contention has been raised by the first respondent that the said Will was not genuine. If . ,. respondent No. 1 has a caveatable interest in respect of 1982 Will, GPB would not have any right in respect of 1999 Will. [Para 164, 165] [718-G-H; 719-A] 18. 1 So far as the case of YB is concerned his . ' appointment as an executor has been upheld by the High Court. It was, however, opined that by reason thereof, he did not acquire any caveatable interest.

RSL has filed an 't appeal against that part of the judgment whereby his appointment as an executor of the Will of MPB of 1992 in place of PDB has been upheld. For the reasons stated in regard to the . legal position governing the filling up of vacancy of one of the named executors by the others, the appointment of YB as an executor of the Will of MPB in place of PDB cannot be sustained. It is not a case of YB that PDB had assumed office or the purported Will of MPB had been given effect to. Genuineness of the said Will is in question. KKB has already filed an application for grant of probate in respect of the said Will. As there is nothing to show that any vacancy has been created by reason of death of PDB, YB could not have been appointed in her place at this stage. The vacancy has to be filled up in terms of the instrument or in accordance with law. It cannot be directed to be filled in equity by a Court of Law. [Para 166, 167] [719-B-F] 18.

2 Only because YB has a right to maintain a suit for purported enforcement of the Mutual Wills, the same by itself cannot confer upon him a caveatable interest. There exists a distinction between an executor named by the testator in the Will and an executor who is appointed on a purported vacancy arising out of death of another executor. In the latter case such an appointment may not be valid. In a case of this nature YB could not be held to have caveatable interest only by reason of such an appointment as here is nothing on record to show that PDB had enjoyed the benefit under the said Will and not as an heir of MPB. If the Will had not been given effect to for such a long time, there is no reason as to why the terms thereof should be directed to be acted upon at this juncture and/or in terms thereof dispute between the parties in this behalf cannot be adjudicated upon at an interlocutory stage. (Para 168, 169) [719-G-H; 720-A-B] 18.

3 The affidavit of assets annexed by the Birlas to their petition for grant of probate in respect of 1982 Will of MPD and the affidavit of assets annexed by them to the -f petition for grant of probate of 1982 Will of PDB show that AND OTHERS the assets held by the former mentioned in the petition for probate of his Will of 1982 are also shown as assets of PDB. [Para 172] [721-H; 722-A-B] Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased} and after her _egal Representative Mr. Marlean Wilkinson v. lsolyne 8 Sarojbashini Bose and others AIR 1962 SC 1471 - referred , , to; ... 1 19. A suit contemplated under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be equated with a probate. In suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, t~e title of the donor may be disputed. Such a question as of necessity must be gone into by the court which, however, is a forbidden domain for the Probate Court. [Para 173] [722-8-C] Sirajul Haq Khan & Others v.

The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, UP and Others 1959 SCR 1287 - referred to. 20. Provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Trust Act have limited application. Applicability thereof would arise when a trustee disclaims, dies or is absent from India for a period of more than six months or leaves India for the purpose of residing abroad or is declared an insolvent etc. Prima facie BKB or YB were not appointed as trustee. They were only appointed as executors. An executor becomes a trustee only upon completion of administration of trust. This proposition does not appear to be in dispute. Administration of trust being incomplete, MPB did not become an executor. He, therefore, was not a trustee. Provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act will, therefore, have no application. In the Will of PDB executed in the year 1982 he was merely named as an executor. It is also difficult, at this stage, to construe the Will of 1982 of PDB as an instrument of trust.

The question in regard to the administration of the estate of PDB only arose after her death which took place in 2004~ MPB died in 1990. The said provisions, therefore, have no application. [Para 174, 175] [722-E-H; 723-A] 21. Why an owner of the property executes a Will in favour of another is a matter of his/her choice. One may by a Will deprive his close family members including his sons and daughters. She had a right to do so. The court is concerned with the genuineness of the Will. If it is found to be valid, no further question as to why did she do so would be completely out of its domain, A Will may be executed even for the benefit of others including animals. Various documents have been placed on behalf of the first respondent to show that MPB was not happy in regard to management of Birlas' Group of Companies and by the division thereof which took place after the demise of G. D. Birla in 1983. Indisputably, however, they were separate.

They were in the control and management of their respective companies. The group of companies managed by MPB and PDB were known as M. P. Birla Group of Companies. There are other companies, named separately, in the name of individual group of Birlas. According to the first respondent he had closely been involved in the M. P. Birla Group of Companies and had been inducted as Director/Co-Chairman/Chairman of various M. P. Birla Group of Companies during the lifetime of PDB. Other persons belonging to Birla family were not so involved. In fact according to the appellants themselves, the first respondent was a man of trust so far PDB is concerned. Thus, the submission that RSL is an outsider does not appeal to this Court to determine the issues in favour of Birlas. [Para 176, 177, 178 and 179] [723-8-G; 724-F] 22. It has already held that GPB has caveatable interests as executor of MPB in respect of his Will of 1982.

Therefore, there is no reason why RSL would not have a caveatable interest being a beneficiary under the 1999 Will ,. in the proceedings for grant of probate of the Will of MPB + dated 13th July, 1982. If the grounds taken in the appeal AND OTHERS are to be upheld, the same ex facie would destroy the case of the appellants in the other cases. [Para 181] [724-H; 725-A-B] 23. 1 Filing of Civil Suit No. 221 of 2004 does not bar considering the caveatable interest and as this Court is not called upon to decide the maintainability of the said suit at this stage, no observation is made thereupon. [Para 182] [725-C] 23. 2 The High Court was right in opining that caveatable interest may arise only after suit for enforcement of mutual Will is decreed and not prior thereto. [Para 183] [725-D] 24. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the probate proceedings should be taken up for hearing by the High Court as expeditiously as possible.

0 The High Court is requested to consider this aspect of the matter. Probate proceedings may also be taken up for hearing one after the other. Probate proceeding of RSL in respect of Will of PDB executed in the year 1999 should be taken up first. The hearing of the probate proceeding of Will of MPB of 1982 may be taken up immediately thereafter. Judgments may be delivered, if possible, at the same time. The suit filed by the executors of the two 1982 Wills being Civil Suit No. 221 of 2004 may be taken up for hearing only after the disposal of the probate proceedings, if necessary. [Para 185, 186, 187] [725-G-H; 726-A-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 21. 12. 2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in G. A. No. 1429 of2005 in A. P. O. T. No. 284 of 2005 in A. P. O. No. 242 of 2005. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2278, 2274, 2276, 2279 and 2275 of2008. Ram Jethmalani, Shyam Sarkar, Mahesh Jethmalani, K. K.

Venugopal, Dushyant Dave, Arun Jaitley, Bhaskar P. Gupta, Harish N. Salve, A. K. Mitra, Indira Jaisingh, P. H. Parekh, Pratap Chatterjee, Anindya Kumar Mitra, Abnhrajit Mitra, Nand Gopal Khaitan, Ajay Bhargava, Atul Shankar Mathur, Vanita Bhargava, Akhil Sibal, D. N. Sharma, Nupor Mukherjee (for M/S. Khaitan & Co. ), B. A. Ranganadhan, Amit Sibal, Abhradt Mitra, D. Manda! , Sanjiv Trivedi, Sameer Parekh, E. R. Kumar, Ankur Chawla, Minakshi Grover, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Mary Mitgy, Sumit Goel, Arjun Garg, Pallavi Srivastava, Pawan, Rukmini Bobde, Meenakshi Chatterjee (for M/s P. H. Parekh &Co. ), Ashish Jha, Pratap Chatterjee, lndraneel Ghosh, Sangeeta Manda! , D. Manda! , Sanjiv Trivedi, Jayasree Singh and Swati Sinha (for M/ s Fox Manda! &Co. ) for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. INTRODUCTION 2.

What is a caveatable interest within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (1925 Act) vis-a-vis the Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court in the year 1940 is the question involved herein. BACKGROUND FACTS 3. Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) and her husband Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) were admittedly very wealthy persons. They owned an industrial empire known as the MP Birla Group of Industries. They were issueless and known for their charitable disposition. They used to run several charitable institutions. 4. Both MPB and PDB are said to have executed mutual wills on identical terms on or about 1oth May, 1981 bequeathing his/her respective estate(s) barring certain specific legacies to + the other and on the death of the survivor to the 'charities' to be nominated by the executors. However, the said wills were revoked and another set of mutual wills were executed on 13th July, 1982 in terms whereof, four executors were appointed in each set of Will (1982 Will).

The executors nominated in MPB's Will were :- 1. Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) 2. Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB) 3. Kashinath Tapuria and 4. Pradip Kumar Khaitan ; Whereas the executors nominated in PDB's will were :- 1. Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) 2. Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB) 3. Kashinath Tapuria . 4. Pradip Kumar Khaitan 5. MPB died on 30th July, 1990. 6. On or about 18th April, 1999, PDB executed her last Will (1999 Will) bequeathing her entire estate to the first respondent i. e. Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL). He was also appointed as the sole executor. She executed a codicil on 15th April, 2003. 7. PDB died on 3rd July, 2004. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT 8. KKB, BKB, and Yashovardhan Birla (YB), the appellants herein, having come to learn of the execution of the said Will filed caveats on 14th July, 2004 to oppose the grant of probate of the 1999 Will. Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB) and Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar also entered caveats on 19th July, 2004. 9.

In his application for grant of probate, GPB accepted that Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta were the heirs and legal representatives of PDB. In the said application, Pradip Kumar Khaitan and Kashinath Tapuria were also parties. 10. On or about 19th July, 2004 the first respondent, RSL filed an application for grant of probate of 1999 Will (P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004) before the High Court of Calcutta showing Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta, the two sisters of MPB, as the only heirs and legal representatives of the testatrix. 11. Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta also entered a caveat on 22nd July, 2004. 12. First respondent took out an application which was marked as GA No. 2721 of 2004 seeking discharge of caveats entered by or on behalf of KKB, BKB, GPB and YB before the High Court of Calcutta. Appellants as also Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar filed their respective affidavits in support of the respective caveats filed on 30th July, 2004.

An affidavit in support of her caveat was also filed by Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta. 13. The executors of the 1982 Wills filed two applications being P. L. A. No. 241 of 2004 for grant of probate of the Will of MPB dated 13th July, 1982 and P. L. A. No. 242 of2004 forgrant of probate of the Will of PDB dated 13th July, 1982 before the Calcutta High Court on 17th August, 2004 purported to have been executed by MPB and PDB, indisputably on the premise that even if the probate of the 1999 Will executed by PDB is granted in favour of the first respondent, he would be under an obligation to abide by the directions contained in the purported mutual Wills. 14. A suit was filed by the surviving executors of the two 1982 Wills before the Calcutta High Court which was numbered as C. S. No.

221 of 2004 claiming inter alia for a declaration that the first respondent as the alleged executor and sole beneficiary of the 1999 Will of PDB is not entitled to deal with the assets of PDB in any manner contrary to and inconsistent with the terms + of the 1982 Will. The cause of action for the said suit was founded on the doctrine of mutual Wills. AND OTHERS [S. S. SINHA, J. ] -1 15. Two deeds of appointments dated 23rd August, 2004 and 24th August, 2004 were also executed appointing YB and BKB as surviving executors of the Wills of MPS and PDB (1982 Wills) in place of PDB and MPS respectively. Whereas appointment of YB was accepted; that of BKB was not. 8 16. An application (G. A. No. 2721 of 2004) was filed by the first respondent to discharge the caveators viz. KKB, BKB, GPB and YB before the Calcutta High Court. HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS 17. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said application of discharge of the caveats filed by KKB, BKB and YB.

However, the caveat filed by GPB was retained. It may be placed on record that the first respondent, RSL, also entered into a caveat in the proceedings arising out of an application for grant of probate of 1982 Wills. Application for discharge of caveat of RSL was also dismissed. 18. Appeals were filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court thereagainst. Cross-objections were filed by RSL in the said appeal against retaining the caveat filed by KKB, BKB and YB as also the appointment of YB as the executor of MPS. The appeals as also the cross-objections have been dismissed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by reason of the judgment impugned herein. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. 19. We may, at the outset, notice the details of the SLPs filed by the parties herein :- 1. SLP (Civil) No. 2089 of 2007 has been filed by Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB) against the order of discharge of his caveat in P. L. A. No.

204 of 2004. :r 2. SLP (Civil) No. 2090 of 2007 has been filed by Basant Kumar Birla (BKB) against the order of discharge of his caveat in P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004. 3. SLP (Civil) No. 2091 of 2007 has been filed by Yashovardhan Birla (YB) against the order of discharge of his caveat in P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004. 4. SLP (Civil) No. 10571 of 2007 has been filed by Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL) against the refusal of order of discharge of caveat filed by Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB) in P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004. 5. SLP (Civil) No. 19040 of 2007 has been filed by Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB) against non-discharge of caveat of Rajendra Singh Lodha in the goods of MPB. 6. SLP (Civil) No. 10176 of 2007 has been filed by Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL) challenging appointment of Yashovardhan Birla (YB) as an executor of the Will of Madhav Prasad Birla of 1982 in place of Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB). FAMILY OF BIRLAS 20.

Before embarking on the questions raised in these appeals we may notice the genealogy of the family of the testatrix- Raja Baldeodas Birla (D) Jugalkishor Rameshwardas Ghanshyamdas (D) (D) Madhav Lakshmi Basant Prasad ID) Niwas (0) Kumar ,... '. :::::J::'. :::::'.... ,~-~ Aditya Chandra Sudarshan Vikram (D) Kant Sidharth Kumar Kumar Mangalarn Aryaman -f Vikram 21. Krishna Kumar (KKB) and Basant Kumar (BKB) are A. the cousins of Madhav Prasad (MPB); whereas Yashovardhan , (YB) is the grand son of sister of MPB. 22. It is stated that PDB was also related to KKB through his wife. .. 23. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that MPB left behind two sisters Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta, who are his as also PDB's heirs and legal representatives. STATUTORY PROVISIONS 24. Provisions relating to grant of 'Probate' is contained in Chapter IV of the 1925 Act. 25. Section 283 of the 1925 Act enumerates the powers of the District Judge.

Section 283(1 )(c) of the 1925 Act confers power upon the District Judge to issue citations calling upon all ~ persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of 'Probate' or 'Letters of Administration'. Sub-section (2) of Section 283 postulates that the citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the court-house, and also the other spaces as specified therein. Section 284 of 1925 Act provides for the lodging of caveats against grant of Probate or Letter of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed with a District Judge or a District Delegate. 26. The form in which caveat is entered has been prescribed in Schedule V appended to the Act, is to the following effect:- "SCHEDULE [See section 284 (4) ] FORM OF CAVEAT ~ Let nothing be done in the matter of the estate of A, B,, late of deceased, who died on the day of __ at without notice to C. D. of 27.

The Calcutta High Court framed rules laying down the procedure for dealing with the applications filed before it in its testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. 28. It is contained in Chapter XXXV thereof. Rule 4 provides for "Application for probate or letters of administration, 8 or a certificate". Rule 5(a) inserted in the year 1948 provides that in all applications for grant of Probate or Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, the names ofthe members of the family or other relatives upon whom the estate would have devolved in case of an intestacy together with their present place of residence shall be stated. Rule 24 provides for filing of caveat on the same terms as contained in Section 284 of the 1925 Act. Rule 25 provides for "Affidavit in support of the caveat" in the following terms :- "25. Affidavit in support of caveat.

- Where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for a grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the will annexed, the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be filed within eight days of the caveat being lodged, notwithstanding the long vacation. Such affidavit shall state the right and interest of caveator, and the grounds of the objections to the application. " (emphasis added). 29. Rule 26 provides for "Notice to caveator to file affidavit". It reads as under:- "26. Notice to caveator to file affidavit. - Where an application for grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the will annexed is presented after a caveat has been filed,, the Registrar shall forthwith issue notice to the caveator, calling upon him to file his affidavit or affidavits in support of his caveat within eight days from the service of such notice. " 30. Rule 27 provides for the "Consequence of not filing the affidavit".

Rule 28 provides that upon the affidavit being filed in support of the caveat (Notice whereof shall immediately be ..... given by the caveator to the petitioner), the proceedings shall, by order of the Judge upon application by summons be numbered as a suit in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration shall be the plaintiff and the caveator shall be the defendant, the petition for probate or letters of administration being registered and deemed as a plaint filed against the caveator, and the affidavit filed by the caveator being treated as his written statement in the suit. 31. Rule 29 provides for service of "Notice to prove will in solemn form" in the following terms :- "29.

Notice to prove will in solemn form, - The party opposing a will may, with his affidavit, give notice to the party setting up the will that he merely insists upon the will being proved in solemn form of law, and only intends to cross-examine the witnesses produced in support of the will, and he shall thereupon be at liberty to do so, and shall not, in any event, be liable to pay the costs of the other .. side, unless the Court shall be of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for opposing the. will. " 32. Rule 30 provides for "Trial of preliminary issue" as under:- "30. Trial of preliminary issue. - The Court may, on the application of the petitioner by summons to the caveator before making the order mentioned in rule 28, direct the trial of an issue as to the caveator's interest.

Whereupon the trial of such issue, if it appears that the caveator has no interest, the Court shall order the caveat to be discharged, and may order the issue of probate or letters of administration, as the case may be. " 33. We may also take note of Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which reads as under:- "Section 73 -Appointment of new trustees on death, etc.

')- Whenever any person appointed a trustee disclaims, of any trustee, either original or substituted, dies, or is for a continuous period of six months absent from India, or ~ leaves India for the purpose of residing abroad, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the trust, or refuses or becomes, in the opinion of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, unfit or personally incapable to act in the trust, or accepts an inconsistent 8 trust, a new trustee may be appointed in his place by- • (a) the person nominated for that purpose by the instrument of trust (ifany), or (b) if there be no such person, or no such person able and willing to act, the author of the trust if he be alive and competent to contract, or the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee for the time being, or legal representative of the last surviving and continuing trustee, or (with the consent of the court) the retiring trustees, if they all retire simultaneously, or (with the like consent) the last retiring trustee.

.. Every such appointment shall be by writing under the hand of the person making it. On an appointment of a new trustee the number of trustees may be increased. The Official Trustee may, with his consent and by the order of the court, be appointed under this section, in any case in which only one trustee is to be appointed and such trustee is to be the sole trustee. The provisions of this section relative to a trustee who is dead include the case of a person nominated trustee in a will but dying before the testator, and those relative to a continuing trustee include a refusing or retiring trustee if willing to act in the execution of the power. " SUBMISSION : 'f- 34. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, KKB would submit AND OTHERS [S. S. SINHA, J] (i) A caveat being maintainable at the instance of common ancestors and near relatives of the testator, the impugned judgment discharging the caveat is · wholly unsustainable.

(ii) Appellant being an executor of the 1982 Will executed by the husband of PDB namely MPS, has , ~ caveatable interest. (iii) Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court although recognized such a right, but, committed a serious error in opining that the same does not constitute a caveatable interest without considering the legal position, namely, that the caveaters had obligations to see that the will of MPS be made effective in letter and spirit so that all the bequeathed properties are applied towards charitable disposition, particularly when a suit for the said purpose has been filed. (iv) The High Court committed a manifest error in ignoring the effect of the suit despite holding that if the suit succeeds, a caveatable interest would accrue to them.

(v) Appellants having a two fold duty to see that RSL, (1) in the event the probate is granted, applies the estate of the deceased subject to charitable disposition; and (2) that he will not take it as his absolute properties; the same thus gave rise to a right and interest under and through which a caveat could be maintained by them. (vi) The caveators, being co-sharers of the testatrix in respect of Kumaon Orchards wherefor an agreement had been entered into on 15th July, 1997 conferring a right of pre-emption against any co-sharer, must be held to have sufficient interest in the estate. -r (vii) As the properties were to be applied for charitable disposition, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be attracted in terms whereof interest must be shown to be exiting in relation to the trust and not the trust property. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the fact that the words "direct interest" occurring therein were substituted by the word "interest" only.

(viii) Rule 30 of the Calcutta High Court Rules is ultra vires Section 295 of the 1925 Act in so far as it lays down a purported qualification for entering into a caveat, although no such requirement is provided thereunder. (ix) As the judicial precedent prior to 1925 would apply even in the post-1925 era, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the qualifications which are necessary for the purpose of having a caveatable interest would be the same even for revocation. (x) The resultant trust involved in execution of mutual Wills must be construed having regard to the surrounding circumstances, as in all such cases the person making the latter Will was a party to the earlier one. As the testatrix in this case purportedly has gone back on her agreement and the case of the appellant being that she never changed her mind as she did not execute the 1999 Will, the right of the appellants had a right to enter a caveat in the probate proceedings.

(xi) In the proceeding for grant of the Probate of the 1982 Will of MPB, RSL did not have any caveatable interest as he has no interest in his property. 35. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for BKB, supplementing the argument of Mr. Jethmalani ·rsubmitted: -f (i) The High Court has committed a serious error in holding that the appointment of BKB in place of MPB in his Will could not have been filled up as he expired during the life time of PDB. (ii) In view of the contention of the appellants that the 1999 Will is a bogus one, the vacancy could be filled ... up in equity. (ii) BKB having a special interest in the charitable disposition of the properties of PDB has, caveatable interest in terms of Section 232 of the 1925 Act.

(iii) As by reason of the agreement dated 15th July, 1997, the parties agreed that a stranger to the family should not enjoy any property, there being a clog on the right to sell the same, the same must be held to be applicable also in a case of gift or will. (iv) Appellants being the cousins and, thus, being interested in the spiritual wellbeing of the trustee, were also entitled to enter their respective caveats. (v) Since the extent of right of a person for lodging caveat had not been laid down under a statute, the decisions rendered from time immemorial holding that only a bare right (which would also mean a bare contention, i. e. , which would give rise to an arguable point at the hearing constitutes a caveatable interest) should be held to be still a good law. (vi) Section 283(1 )(c) of the 1925 Act should not be treated to be the sole repository for the purpose of determining the right of a caveator.

The interpretation of the word "caveat", if given its natural meaning, the same would mean a right to oppose. -'t 36. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of YB urged :- (i) YB being a grandson of the brother of MPB and his appointment as the executor in terms of the deed of appointment dated 24th August, 2004 having been accepted, the High Court must be held to have committed a manifest error in holding that he had not acquired a caveatable interest. (ii) YB being a party to the suit could oppose execution of the Will having regard to the fact that he has shown existence of an interest in all the three sets of proceedings, viz, grant of Probate of 1982 Wills, grant of Probate of 1999 Will and the suit filed by the members of the Birla family to enforce the agreement of MPB and PDB in terms of the 1982 Wills executed by them.

(iii) Determination of validity of the Wills being interdependent, inasmuch as, in the event probates are granted in respect of the 1982 Wills, then the 1999 Will could not be implemented; and even in the event, probate in respect of 1999 Will is granted, the suit can still be decreed so as to give effect to the mutual wills. (iv) YB had a right to maintain the suit on the premise that the properties should be given to charity, thus, had a right to challenge the 1999 Will at the threshold. (v) The High Court committed a manifest error in opining that caveatable interest would depend upon the decree to be passed in the suit instead of a right to maintain the suit. (vi) In any view of the matter, when there exists two Wills, a person who can challenge a rival will, will have a caveatable interest in respect thereof. 37. Mr. Harish N.

Salve, learned senior counsel appearing -t· on behalf of RSL, on the other hand, would contend : -+ (a) A caveatable interest having regard to phraseology used in Section 284 of the 1925 Act would mean a real interest which the caveator could have derived in the estate of the deceased in the event the grant of probate is refused. (b) In view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, ~ 1956 that there being no possibility of any person other than heirs to derive a remote interest in the estate of the deceased, the decisions of various High Courts to the effect that the reversioner and/or distant relatives would have a caveatable interest are no longer good law. (c) A caveatable interest being different from the right of a person to oppose grant of probate on the basis of title, the impugned judgments should not be interfered with. ... , (d) Consideration in regard to locus standi to maintain a Public Interest Litigation or a suit under Section 92 of tt..

f· Code of Civil Procedure is irrelevant for dett . ' ''ination of issues arising in a probate proceeding. The said contention having not been raised in the affidavit filed by any of the appellants herein before the High Court, should not be permitted to be raised before this Court for the first time. In any event by taking recourse to the said provision, the nature and character of a probate proceeding cannot be changed. (e) The claim of the appellants to have a caveatable interest in their capacity as agnates is wholly unsustainable as the sisters of MPB are alive. They do not have a caveatable interest even as executors of the Will of MPB of 1982 or otherwise. (f) 1982 Will of MPB is not affected by the 1999 Will, particularly, when appellants are not the legatees thereunder and as such the question of surviving executor deriving any interest in his place would not arise.

(g) An executor under a Will would not remain an executor upon his ceasing to hold the said office or by a renouncement or his removal or death, but, such contingencies having not taken place, no purported vacancy had arisen, and thus, the question of filling up the same does not arise. (h) As mutual Wills are not rival Wills, persons claiming as executors of the Will of MPB did not derive any caveatable interest, as they remained unaffected by subsequent Wills. (i) In regard to the SLP filed by R. K. Lodha, for refusing him to be impleaded as a party on the plea that he had no caveatable interest, it was submitted that having regard to the contention that MPB did not execute any Will, he should have been impleaded as a party as representative of PDB. 0) Reference to Section 263 of the 1925 Act and the decisions rendered thereupon are wholly irrelevant as considerations for applications thereof have nothing to do with the application under Sections 283 and 284 thereof. 38. Mr.

Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing in some of the matters for RSL urged: . _ (i) The 1925Act having retained the phraseologies used in the earlier as well as the successor Acts, the same meaning to the words as was earlier operating, should be assigned. (ii) Rules of the Calcutta High Court, having been framed in terms of Section 122 of the Code of Civil ..... Procedure, 1908, are valid in law. (iii) Theory of mutual Wills do not stand in the way of grant of probate of a later Will. COMPARATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE 1881 ACT AND THE 1925 ACT 39. Grant of probate or Letters of Administration with a 8 ~ copy of the Will annexed, used to be governed by the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 (for short "the 1881 Act") Rules were framed by the Calcutta High Court in terms of the provisions thereof. 40. We may briefly notice that Section 69 of the 1881 Act corresponds to Section 283 of the 1925 Act.

Section 70 of the 1881 Act corresponds to Sub-sections (1 ), (2) and (3) of Section 284 of the 1925 Act, whereas Section 71 of the 1881 Act corresponds to sub-section (4) of Section 284 of 1925 Act. 41. The statement required to be made as envisaged in Schedule V of the 1925 Act was a part of Section 71 of the 1881 Act. Section 72 of the 1881 Act corresponds to Section 285 and Sections 73 and 83 of the 1881 Act correspond to Sections 286 and 295 of the 1925 Act. 42. The validity of the Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court will have to be considered having regard to the provisions of the 1881 Act. We shall advert to the said question a little later. THE WILLS 43. The Relevant terms of Will of MPB executed on 13th July, 1982 as also those of the Will executed by PDB may be noticed at this juncture. 44. MPB by his Will appointed four executors including his wife.

By reason thereof, he bequeathed all his properties to his wife and only in the event of his wife predeceasing him, the 't executors were to make over and/ or donate and/or settle for public charitable purposes the estate as they might think fit and proper. Clause 3 of the 1982 Will reads as under: "3. Subject to the provisions of Clause 2 above, the Executors will have power to donate the estate to one or more public charitable trusts, societies or institutions and/ or establish one or more public charitable trusts, societies or institutions for public charitable objects as they may think fit. " 45. The Will purported to have been ex_ecuted by PDB was on the same terms except that one outsider executor named therein was different, which we have noticed hereinbefore. She also bequeathed her properties in favour of MPB. She, however, sought to bequeath all ornaments and jewelleries, gold coins and articles to the three daughters of K. K. Birla absolutely in equal proportion.

Clause 4 of the said Will is on similar basis to Clause. 3 of the Will of MPB. 46. It is of some significance that Shri P. L. Agarwal and Shri S. J. Khaitan are attesting witnesses to the said Wills. 47. PDB executed the disputed Will on 18th April, 1999, in terms whereof any Will made prior thereto stood cancelled. In the said Will, she categorically stated that she had been running several business concerns and also managing properties and institutions, bequeathed to her, in the true and sincere spirit of a trustee for the larger benefit of the country and of the interest of shareholders and workers. 48. She nominated the first respondent as her legatee. Except the fact that Shri P. L. Agarwal of Khaitan and Company is also an attesting witness, it is not necessary for us to notice the other stipulations ma. de therein. 49. On or about 15th April, 2003, a Codicil was executed with a view to avoid any confusion or ambiguity in the 1999 Will.

By reason thereof, certain declarations were made and some directions were also issued to the first respondent. THE SUIT (CS NO. 221 OF 2004) 50. The suit was instituted by the purported three executors of both the Wills. Both the said Wills were said to have been made over to Kashinath Tapuria; one of the appointed executors thereunder. He is said to have produced the same only after the · death of PDB. It is stated that upon the death of MPS on 30th ~ July, 1990, PDB as a beneficiary of her husband's Will came to possess, own and control his estate and, thus, had taken and enjoyed the benefit under the said Will until her death on 3rd July, 2004. 51. The averments in the plaint of the said suit proceeded on the basis that the Will dated 18th April, 1999 and Codicil dated 15th April, 2003 were not genuine.

It was contended that PDB had only a life interest in the estate and, thus, she was incompetent to dispose of her own or the combined estate by alienation or dissipation in a manner inconsistent with the terms and tenor of the mutual Wills. The validity of the said Will was also questioned. Paragraph 15 of the plaint reads as under: "15. Even on the footing that the said purported will dated 18th April 1999 is genuine and valid and had to the effect of revoking the earlier will of Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla dated 13th July, 1982, the plaintiffs would contend that on her death, the defendant as alleged executor of the said purported will must hold the estate of Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla, now representing the combined estates of Madhav Prasad Birla and Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla, in trust for the agreed ultimate beneficiaries of the mutual wills viz. charities which might be set up or nominated by the executors of the will dated 13th July 1982 of Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla. " 52.

According to the plaintiffs, they, as executors of the said Wills, became entitled to take possession of the entire estate, make over, donate or settle the same for public charitable purposes or to establish any public charitable trust at their absolute discretion. A plea of constructive trust on the basis of the said Wills was also raised. 53. The defendant's right of sole beneficiary of the said Will dated 13th April, 1999 was questioned, stating: "17. The defendant as alleged executor and sole • beneficiary of the said purported will dated 13th April, 1999 is not entitled to put any impediment to or interfere with the implementation of the said trust. " 54. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit inter alia are: "a) Declaration that the defendant as the alleged executor and sole beneficiary of the purported will dated 13th April 1999 and/ or purported Codicil dated 15th April 2003 allegedly made by Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla is not entitled to deal with the estate of Smt.

Priyamvada Devi Birla in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Will dated 13th July, 1932 executed by Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla, save to the extent of making over the said estate to the Plaintiff for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the said Will dated 13th July, 1932 made by Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla. " 55. The plaint was drawn by Khaitan and Company. One of its parties is also a defendant in the probate proceedings. Pradip Kumar Khaitan is a party in the suit. He is an executor. Witnesses to the said Will are Khaitans. They are also working as Advocates in the proceedings instituted. by or against Birlas. ANALYSIS OF THE 1925 ACT 56. The 1925 Act is a self contained Code. An application for grant of probate is to be filed in terms of Sections 275 and 276 thereof. Particulars stated in the said provisions are to be furnished by the applicant. The petition for grant of probate is to be signed and verified.

Citations in terms of Section 233 (1 )(c) y are to be issued calling upon all such persons who claim to ·~ have any interest in the estate of the deceased. Citations are issued in order to enable such persons to see the proceedings before the grant of probate and if necessary to oppose the same. 57. Such persons to whom citations have been issued whether general or special, may file a caveat. All proceedings are required to be taken only upon service of notice to the .. caveator(s). Section 286 uses the word "contention" to mean appearance of any one in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf, to oppose the proceeding. In the contentious cases the procedures which are required to be adopted are specified in Section 295. 58.

Only because neither in Section 284 nor Section 295 a caveator is required to show any interest in the estate of the deceased, whether the same would mean that anybody and everybody who intends to oppose the grant of probate would be entitled to lodge caveat, is the question. 59. The 1925 Act in this case has nothing to do with the "'"" law of inheritance or succession which is otherwise governed by statutory laws or the custom, as the case may be. It makes detailed provisions as to how and in what manner an application for grant of probate is to be filed, considered and granted or refused. Rights and obligations of the parties as also the executors and administrators appointed by the court are laid down therein. Removal of the existing executors and administrators and appointment of subsequent executors are within the exclusive domain of the court. The jurisdiction of the > Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the Will.

A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone into the proceedings. Construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court. ) 60. A person to whom a citation is to be issued or a caveator, must have some interest in the estate of the testator. Any person claiming any interest adverse to the testator or his estate cannot maintain any application before the Probate Court. His remedy would be elsewhere. The question with regard to the degree of interest or the right which a caveator must show to establish his or her caveatable interest before the Probate Court should be considered having regard to the aforementioned legal propositions. CAVEATABLE INTEREST 61. Appellants herein have raised a large number of contentions to show that they have a caveatable interest.

We may categorize them as under: (i) Mutual Will; (ii) Family interest; (iii) Spiritual well-being of the testatrix (iv) Pre-emption : Future domain doctrine; (v) Preferential right - being executors of 1982 Will; (vi) Executor appointed in place of original Executor; (vii) Executor appointed in place of MPB in purported conformity with the 1982 Will of PDB, viz. , YB. Before dealing with each of the aforementioned contentions, let us consider what is meant by the term "Caveatable interest". 62. It has not been defined under the Act. We may, therefore, notice the dictionary meaning of both the terms "caveat" and "interest". Legal Thesaurus Regular Edition by Wlliam C.

Burton defines "interest" as under:- "Interest (Ownership), noun Assets, belongings, claim, dominion, droit, holding lawful ~possession, part, participation, percentage of ownership, portion, possession, property, proprietorship, right, right of ownership, rightful possession , seisin, share, stake, title Associated Concepts : accounts bearing interest, assignable interest, beneficial interest, common interest, contingent interest, continuity of interest, controlling interest, future interest, interest in hand, joint interest, legal interest, legal rate of interest, life interest, person interested in will, property interest, qualified interest, remainder interest, remaining interest, transit of interest, undivided interest. 63. "Caveat" has been defined in Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law as under :- "caveat, n. 1, a warning or caution; admonition. 2.

In certain legal contexts, a formal notice of interest in matter or property; for example, a notice to a court or public officer to suspend a certain proceeding until the notifier is given a hearing ; a caveat filed against the probate of a will. 64. Whereas the counsel for Birlas want us to take a liberal approach as contrasted to real interest, submission of Mr. Salve is that all caveators must have a real interest in the subject matter of the property. SOME PRECEDENTS 65. What would be a caveatable interest in the facts and circumstances of the present case is the principal issue involved herein. With a view to find out an answer thereto, let us notice some precedents operating in the field. 66. A large number of decisions principally of the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts have been cited by the appellants to show as to what constitutes a 'caveatable interest'. 67. We may, however, at the outset, notice a decision of -t this Court in Elizabeth Antony v.

Michel Charles John Chown Lengera [(1990) 3 SCC 333] which is binding on us. Therein, the testatrix, viz. , one Mary Aline Browne, was the wife of one Herbet Evander Browne, the eldest son of John Browne. Mary died on 28th March, 1972. She had executed a Will on 12th March, 1962. An application for grant of a Letter of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed was filed by Michel. Petitioner Elizabeth Antony and her husband Zoe Enid Browne filed caveats on the plea that the said Will was a forged document. The petitioner therein also claimed that her daughter Browne had executed a Will on 23'. d June, 1975 and she had , executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner. She also claimed herself to be a trustee of John Browne Trust. 68. The Probate Court held that they had no caveatable interest.

Caveatable interest, therefore, was claimed as an executor and legatee of the Will executed by Ms Zoe Enid Borwne as also a deed of gift in respect of one item of the estate executed in their favour. Caveatable interest was also claimed on the premise that the petitioner was appointed a trustee of John Browne Trust. This Court noticed a large number of High Court judgments. It was, however, opined that the petitioner therein failed to establish a caveatable interest stating: "... We have perused the entire order of the trial court in the context. Admittedly neither the original nor a copy of the will said to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne, was filed. Now coming to the trust, it is in the evidence of PW 1 that John Browne Trust has come to an end in March 1972 and the same was not in existence. The trial court has considered both the documentary and oral evidence in this regard and has rightly held that the petitioner has no existing benefit from the trust.

Likewise the registered gift deed or a copy of it has not been filed. Before the learned Single Judge of the High Court also same contentions were put forward. The learned Judge observed that from the objections filed by the caveator she desires the court in the probate proceedings to uphold her title on the strength of a gift deed and the trust deed. It is observed: "Equally, the petitioner has not placed before the court the will dated June 23, 1975 stated to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne to establish that under the will dated March 12, 1962 stated to have been executed by Mary Aline Browne some interest given to the petitioner under the will dated June 23, 1975 of Zoe Enid Browne, is liable to be in any manner affected or otherwise displaced, by the grant of letters of administration in respect of the will dated March 12, 1962 stated to have been executed by Mary Aline Browne.

" Accordingly the learned Judge held that the petitioner has not established that she has a caveatable interest justifying her opposition to the probate proceedings for grant of letters of administration. In this state of affairs, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner has caveatable interest. " 69. This Court, thus, categorically opined that while granting a probate, the court would not decide any dispute with regard to title. A separate suit would be maintainable therefor. If probate is granted, they have a remedy in terms of Section 263 of the 1925 Act also. 70. In the recent judgment of Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardaya/ Singh Dhillon and others [2007 (12) SCALE 282], this court inter alia relying upon Chiranjila/ Shri/al Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors.

[(1993) 2 sec 507] and upon referring to a catena of decisions of the High Court and this Court, held that Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself. In Basanti Devi v. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswa/ [(2007) 12 SCALE 542], it is stated : "21. The Probate Court, indisputably, exercises a limited jurisdiction. It is not concerned with the question of title. But ifthe probate has been granted subject to compliance -+ of the provisions of the Act, an application for revocation would also lie. " 71. Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass [ILR 17 Calcutta 48] is a decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. In that case, the District Judge admitted the objection. It was held that rival titles set up by the caveator can be gone into. Setting aside the said judgment of the District Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court held: "...

A person disputing the right of a deceased testator to deal with certain property as his own cannot be properly regarded as having an interest in the estate of the deceased. His action is rather that of one claiming to have an adverse interest... " 72. Abhiram Dass (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prijoshah Bhikaji v. Pestonji Merwanji [12 Born LR 366] stating: "... the interest which entitles a person to put in a caveat must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person, that is, there should be no dispute whatever as to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as caveator must show some interest in that estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. " 73. Madras High Court also took the same view in Rahamtul/ah Sahib v. Rama Rau & Anr. [ILR 17 Madras 373] opining: "this possibility should rest on existing facts and not on mere conjecture". 74.

It is also of some significance to note that Abhiram Dass (supra) has been noticed by the Calcutta High Court in Nikunj Kumar Lohia v. Narayan Prasad Garodia & Others [1996 (1) CHN 205], In the Goods of Mohammad Bashir (deceased) [AIR 1964 Cal 34] and Smt. Namita Singha v. Joydeb Chandra Paul [AIR 2006 Cal 230]; by the Madras High . Court in M. S. Saraswathi v. M. S. Selvadurai & Anr. [(1997) 3 LW 541 (Mad)]; and by the Bombay High Court in Mrs. Perviz Sarosh Batliwalla &Anr. v. Mrs. Viloo Plumber&Anr. [AIR 2000 Born 189] and Rajiv Ramprasad Gupta v. Rusto. m Sam Boyee [AIR 2003 Born 242]. 75. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Jethmalani on Nobeen Chander Sil and others v. Bhobosoondari Debee [ILR 6 Calcutta 460]. Therein, Field, J. interpre.

ting Section 242 of the 1925 Act opined that if any person can show that he was entitled to maintain a suit in respect of property over which probate would have effect, he possesses a sufficient interest to enter a caveat and oppose the grant of probate. 76. Such a suit, however, in our opinion must have a direct nexus with the estate of the testator and not to enforce a right in respect of the application of the estate of the testator under 0 another will. Right to maintain a suit must be independent of the wills sought to be probated. No legal right accrues under an unprobated Will except in case where taking of probate is not mandatory. In Nobeen Chander Sil (supra) the appellants therein had a direct interest in disputing the Will. He had obtained a money decree against the testator. His share was under attachment. In the aforementioned factual backdrop, it was held: "What is the meaning of the expression "persons claiming to have any interest ?

" It appears to me that the persons claiming to have any interest must be persons having such an interest as would entitle them to maintain a suit in ) respect of the subject matter of such estqte - persons having, for example, such an interest as, according to the practice of the Court of Chancery, would entitle them to file a bill in a Court of Equity," 77. It contains two competing passages. One rendered by White, J. and another by Field, J. -~ White, J. stated: "It is not. necessary to consider whether the case cited by the District Judge is good law, for it does not determine the question with which we have to deal. In that case the parties opposing the probate were simple creditors of a person who was the heir of the deceased, supposing the testator had died without a will, and supposing also that he had not adopted a son.

In the present case the appellants have a claim upon the immoveable property left by the testator - two of them as mortgagees of the persons who, if the testator left no will, are entitled to create the mortgage, and one of the appellants as the attaching creditor of one of these persons. " 78. Field, J. , however, expanded the ambit of 'caveatable interest'. A suit which would be maintainable must have so~ething to do with the estate of the testator. Inheritance by Will itself may 0 be a subject matter of contention. Whether the interest claimed by the caveator is an established one or a bare claim must satisfy the test that there exists an interest in the estate of the testator and the same is not adverse thereto. The said decision has been followed by other High Courts as for example G. Jayakumar v. R. Ramaratnam [AIR 1972 Mad 212] wherein it was held:- 14. In support of this view, their Lordships quoted the observations of Field J.

, in the matter of the petition of Bhobosoonduri Dabee, ! LR (1881) 6 Cal 460 to the following effect:- "As to the test of what constitutes a sufficient interest to entitle any particular person to be made a party, according to the view which I have already stated, I think ii comes to this that any person has a sufficient interest who can show that he is a entitled to maintain a suit in respect of the property over which the probate would have effect under the provisions of Section 242 of the Indian Succession Act. " ANO OTHERS [S. B. SINHA, J. ] To the same effect is a decision of Calcutta High Court in Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaran Chandra Biswas and others [AIR 1932 Calcutta 734]. As would appear from the discussions made hereinafter, the said view, to our mind, is not entirely correct. A caveatable interest was claimed therein on the basis of acquisition of a subsequent interest from the daughter of the testator. The District Judge held that he did not have a caveatable interest.

The Calcutta High Court, interpreting Section 283 (1 )(c) of the 1925 Act, he! d: "... And possibility of an interest does not apply to possibility of a party filling a character which would give him an interest but to the possibility of his having an interest in the result of setting aside the will. .. " 0 As the caveator acquired an interest from the daughter, he was said to have a caveatable interest. ~ 79. Although we may not be very much concerned with the caveatable interest of the reversioners, a large number of decisions of the Calcutta and Madras High Courts were cited by Mr. Jethmalani to show that such an interest was held to be a caveatable interest. 80. One of the judgments relied upon was Brindaban Chandra Shaha v. Sureshwar Shaha Parmanick and others (10 Cal. LJ 263]. In that case, the caveator was found to have been entitled to inherit th