Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 10th June 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, dismissing Chamber Summons No.39 of 2013 filed by the appellants for impleadment as respondents in Testamentary Suit No.11 of 2012. The suit pertains to the estate of one Ramalaxmi Ravishankar Trivedi, who died leaving a Will. The respondent No.1, Mahesh Govind Trivedi, is the sole executor named in the Will and filed a petition for grant of probate. The appellants claim to have purchased certain properties from one of the legatees under the Will, Mugatlal G. Trivedi (respondent No.3), by a registered sale deed dated 30th April 2004. They sought impleadment in the testamentary suit on the ground that they have a caveatable interest as purchasers of part of the estate. The learned Single Judge dismissed their chamber summons, holding that the appellants do not have a caveatable interest as they are not heirs or legal representatives of the deceased. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising V.M. Kanade and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ., dismissed the appeal. The Court held that under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, only persons who are heirs or legal representatives of the deceased, or who have a direct interest in the estate as on the date of death, can lodge a caveat. The appellants, being purchasers from a legatee, derive their rights from the Will, which is yet to be proved. Their interest is contingent and not direct. Therefore, they cannot claim a caveatable interest. The Court also held that the appellants cannot be added as parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as they are not necessary or proper parties to the probate proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Caveatable Interest - Impleadment in Probate Proceedings - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 283 - The appellants, who purchased property from a legatee under a Will before grant of probate, sought impleadment in the testamentary suit. The Court held that only persons who are heirs or legal representatives of the deceased, or who have a direct interest in the estate as on the date of death, can lodge a caveat. Purchasers from a legatee do not have a caveatable interest as their rights are derived from the Will, which is yet to be proved. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Court held that the appellants cannot be added as parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as they are not necessary or proper parties to the probate proceedings. Their interest, if any, is only derivative and contingent upon the grant of probate. (Paras 11-15) C) Succession Law - Rights of Purchaser from Legatee - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The Court observed that a purchaser from a legatee acquires only a contingent interest, subject to the outcome of probate proceedings. Such a purchaser cannot claim a right to be heard in the probate suit as they are not directly affected by the grant or refusal of probate. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, who are purchasers of property from a legatee under a Will, have a caveatable interest entitling them to be impleaded as parties in a testamentary suit for grant of probate.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 10th June 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Chamber Summons No.39 of 2013 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Caveatable interest
- Impleadment in probate proceedings
- Section 283 of Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC
- 1908
- Right of purchaser from legatee
