Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are heirs of the deceased Andrew Satiro D'Cunha, filed a petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking revocation of a probate granted on 3 July 1980 in favor of Joseph Anthony D'Cunha, the son of the deceased. The deceased had executed a Will on 20 February 1971 bequeathing his house 'Villa Bemvinda' to his son Joseph. The probate was granted by the Bombay High Court in 1980. The petitioners claimed that they came to know about a public notice dated 14 December 2012 regarding development of the property, which prompted them to file the revocation petition in 2013. They alleged that the probate was obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts, and that the Will was not duly executed. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners were aware of the Will and probate since 1980 and that the petition was barred by delay and laches. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioners had admitted knowledge of the Will in their petition. The court noted that the petitioners had not taken any steps for over 30 years to challenge the probate. The court held that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of 33 years without any satisfactory explanation. The court further held that the petitioners failed to establish any ground for revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court dismissed the petition with costs, observing that the petitioners had acquiesced to the probate and that the delay was fatal.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Revocation of Probate - Section 263 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Delay and Laches - Petitioners sought revocation of probate granted in 1980, claiming they were unaware of the probate proceedings and that the Will was not duly executed - Court held that petitioners were aware of the Will and probate since 1980, and the petition filed after 33 years was barred by delay and laches - Held that no grounds for revocation were made out (Paras 1-10). B) Succession Law - Revocation of Probate - Section 263 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Burden of Proof - Petitioners alleged fraud and suppression of material facts but failed to provide any evidence - Court held that the burden to prove grounds for revocation lies on the petitioners, which they failed to discharge - Held that mere allegations without proof are insufficient (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to revocation of probate granted in 1980 on grounds of fraud, suppression of material facts, or other valid reasons under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Revocation of probate
- Inordinate delay
- Section 263 Indian Succession Act 1925
- Laches
- Acquiescence
- Burden of proof
