Bombay High Court Allows Probate Petition for Will of Deceased Couple Despite Caveat by Daughter-in-Law. Court holds that caveator lacks locus standi to oppose probate as she is not a legal heir under Indian Succession Act, 1925.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 113
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rhea Parthasarthy, filed a petition for probate of the Will of her deceased parents, Ravi Parthasarathy and Dr. (Mrs.) Vishpala Parthasarathy. The caveator, Sonali Nimesh Lokhandwala, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, filed a caveat opposing the grant of probate. The court considered the issue of whether the caveator has locus standi to oppose the probate. The court held that under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, only persons who would be entitled to a share in the estate if the deceased died intestate have the right to caveat. Since the caveator is a daughter-in-law and not a legal heir, she has no locus standi. The court allowed the probate petition and granted probate to the petitioner.

Headnote

A) Succession Law - Locus Standi to Caveat - Section 283 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The caveator, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased, is not a legal heir under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and thus has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate. The court held that only persons who would be entitled to a share in the estate if the deceased died intestate can caveat. (Paras 1-3)

B) Succession Law - Probate - Grant of Probate - Sections 222, 276 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The petitioner, being the sole heir and daughter of the deceased, is entitled to probate of the Will. The court allowed the petition and granted probate. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the caveator, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased, has locus standi to oppose the grant of probate of the Will of the deceased.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the probate petition and granted probate to the petitioner.

Law Points

  • Locus standi to caveat probate
  • Legal heir under Indian Succession Act
  • 1925
  • Section 283
  • Section 222
  • Section 276
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 112

Interim Application (L) No. 20148 of 2025 in Caveat (L) No. 19816 of 2025 in Petition No. 1131 of 2025

2025-09-03

2025:BHC-OS:14411

Mr. Ankit Lohia a/w Kshitij Madekar, Murari Madekar, Sachin Kudalkar i/by M/s Madekar & Co. for the Applicant/Petitioner; Ms. Mamta Sadh a/w Ms. Devika Kakoo i/by Mr. S. G. Lakhani for the Caveator

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Probate petition for grant of probate of Will of deceased parents.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks grant of probate of the Will of her deceased parents.

Filing Reason

The petitioner is the sole heir and daughter of the deceased and seeks to administer the estate as per the Will.

Issues

Whether the caveator has locus standi to oppose the grant of probate.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the caveator is not a legal heir and has no locus standi. Caveator argued that she has an interest in the estate.

Ratio Decidendi

Only persons who would be entitled to a share in the estate if the deceased died intestate have locus standi to caveat a probate petition. A daughter-in-law is not a legal heir under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Judgment Excerpts

The caveator, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased, is not a legal heir under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and thus has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a probate petition. The caveator filed a caveat. The court heard arguments on the caveat and allowed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 283, Section 222, Section 276
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Husband's Maintenance Claim Under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act — Able-bodied Qualified Husband Not Entitled to Interim Maintenance from Wife. Court holds that a husband who is well-qualified and capable of securing employ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Provisional Attachment Order in GST Case — Attachment of Escrow Account Held Invalid as Petitioner Was Not the Tax-Defaulting Assessee. Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 does not permit provisional attachment of property of a t...