The Supreme Court of India has held that a probate granted without impleading necessary parties and without full disclosure of material facts is liable to be revoked under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“ISA”). The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated April 26, 2022, passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. (PD) No. 1823 of 2021.

The suit properties in question were situated in Mayilampatti Village, Coimbatore District, and had originally belonged to one Eswaramurthy Gounder. On January 9, 1976, Eswaramurthy Gounder allegedly executed an unregistered Will in favour of his daughter, Respondent No. 1 Sarojini. Critically, however, a mere six weeks after the execution of the said Will, Eswaramurthy Gounder himself sold the very same properties to C.R. Palanisamy Gounder and Manickavasagam through a registered sale deed dated February 21, 1976. Subsequently, in 1997, Appellant No. 1 and the paternal grandfather of Appellant No. 2 purchased the suit properties from the legal heirs of these two persons through registered sale deeds and claimed to have been in peaceful possession thereof since.

Eswaramurthy Gounder passed away on May 5, 1983, leaving behind five children — two sons, E. Somasundaram and E. Ramasamy, and three daughters including Respondent No. 1. On April 21, 2009, approximately 33 years after the execution of the Will and 26 years after the death of the testator, Respondent No. 1 filed Probate Original Petition No. 72 of 2009 before the District Court, Coimbatore, claiming probate of the unregistered Will dated January 9, 1976. In doing so, she impleaded only her two sisters as party respondents, conspicuously omitting her two brothers and their legal heirs, as well as the Appellants, who were the owners and possessors of the suit properties at that time. No reference was made in the probate petition to the registered sale deed executed by her father in 1976, or to the subsequent registered sale deeds by virtue of which the Appellants held title. The District Court granted probate on November 26, 2009.

What made the suppression more apparent was the fact that a mere eight days after filing the probate petition, Respondent No. 1 herself filed O.S. No. 110 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif, Palladam, seeking declaration of title over the same properties. In the plaint filed therein, Respondent No. 1 specifically averred that her two brothers had forcibly taken out their father and obtained his signature to dispose of the properties, and that she was aware of the encumbrance created over the suit properties in favour of third parties immediately after the execution of the Will. The Supreme Court found this highly significant — the very facts suppressed in the probate petition were explicitly pleaded by Respondent No. 1 herself in a parallel civil suit filed within days, demonstrating conscious concealment on her part.

Upon learning of the grant of probate, the Appellants filed I.A. No. 612 of 2015 under Section 263 of the ISA before the District Court, seeking revocation of the probate. The District Court, after framing issues and examining witnesses, allowed the application and revoked the probate by a detailed order dated September 30, 2020. It found that the Will had not been proved in accordance with law since no attesting witness had been examined, that no satisfactory explanation was offered regarding the custody of the Will for nearly 26 years between the death of the testator and its alleged discovery in 2009, and that the original Will was improperly removed from the Court’s custody in contravention of Section 294 of the ISA. The District Court further found that the legal heirs of the deceased sons of the testator, being necessary and proper parties, had not been impleaded, and that the procedure under Section 283 of the ISA for inviting objections via public notice had not been followed. Aggrieved by this revocation, Respondent No. 1 preferred a revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed, setting aside the revocation order and restoring the probate. The High Court held that testamentary jurisdiction is confined to adjudicating upon the genuineness of a Will and does not extend to pronouncing upon questions of title. The Appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, upon a thorough analysis of the facts and the relevant provisions, held that the High Court committed grave error in setting aside the District Court’s revocation order. The Court extensively referred to settled legal principles governing probate proceedings and held that the grant of probate is a judgment in rem, binding not only the parties but the entire world, and therefore, persons having any interest in the estate — however slight — are entitled to be cited before any final order is passed. The Court held that persons who acquire an interest in the estate of the testator prior to the initiation of probate proceedings are entitled to notice and are persons “who ought to have been cited” within the meaning of Illustration (ii) to Section 263 of the ISA.

On the facts, the Court found that Respondent No. 1 had obtained the probate by suppressing material facts from the Court. The Court observed that “in the said probate proceedings filed under Section 276 of the ISA by present respondent no. 1, she had not joined her two brothers/their legal heirs, as well as the present appellants as party respondents. No citations were issued to them.” The Court further noted the telling significance of the civil suit filed only eight days after the probate petition, wherein Respondent No. 1 herself acknowledged the sale of the properties and the role of her brothers, and held that this disclosure in the parallel proceeding unmistakably established that the suppression in the probate petition was conscious and deliberate. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the respondent no. 1 herein obtained the order of grant of probate in her favour by suppressing material facts, and no citations were issued to the brothers of the respondent no. 1/their legal heirs and the present appellants, before the grant of probate. Hence, the District Court was justified in revoking the order of grant of probate in favour of respondent no. 1.”

The impugned order of the High Court was accordingly quashed and set aside, and the order of the District Court revoking the grant of probate was restored. The Court, however, clarified that the civil proceedings pending before the concerned Civil Court shall be decided in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the present judgment. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Cause Title: S. Leorex Sebastian & Anr. v. Sarojini & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 20055 of 2022)

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Date of Decision: April 21, 2026

Click HERE for full Judgment