The Bombay High Court has affirmed that courts possess inherent authority to revoke probate obtained through fraud, irrespective of whether the petitioner holds a legal interest in the estate. This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial integrity must prevail over technical standing when deception undermines the probate process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petition sought revocation of probate granted to Respondents 1 to 3 for the Will of Tehmina Nuruddin Rangwala, dated 2nd June 2005. The Petitioners, widow and daughter of Tehmina’s pre-deceased son Saifuddin, alleged the Will was forged, the deceased’s religion was falsely stated as Sunni Muslim (she was Shia), and the beneficiary, Respondent No. 4, was a stranger to the family. They further contended that the Respondents suppressed the existence of a 2015 MOU in which they jointly acknowledged Tehmina’s intestacy and listed the Petitioners as co-owners of the property.
Procedural History
- 2010: Tehmina Rangwala died.
- 2015: MOU executed between Petitioners and Respondents 1 - 3, identifying Petitioners as co-owners and stating Tehmina died intestate.
- 2018: Testamentary Petition No. 1114 filed by Respondents 1 - 3 seeking probate of the 2005 Will; Petitioners cited as legal heirs with unknown addresses.
- 2019: Citation served via newspaper publication under Rule 400, as Respondents claimed Petitioners’ whereabouts were unknown.
- 2024: Petition filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act seeking revocation of probate on grounds of fraud and suppression.
Relief Sought
The Petitioners sought annulment of the probate grant, surrender of the original probate document, and declaration that the Will was fraudulent and invalid due to concealment, misrepresentation, and non-compliance with procedural norms.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a party lacking caveatable interest under Mohammedan Law can still maintain a petition for revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act when fraud, suppression, or false statements are proven to have been committed in obtaining the grant.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Peter John D'Souza v. Armstrong Joseph D'Souza to argue that courts have suo motu power to set aside probate obtained by fraud, even if the petitioner has no legal claim. They emphasized that the Respondents knowingly concealed the Petitioners’ known address from the 2015 MOU, falsely claimed ignorance of their whereabouts, and misrepresented the deceased’s religion. The delay of 13 years in filing for probate was unexplained and violated Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court Rules. The bequest to a stranger, absence of explanation for disinheriting close relatives, and inconsistent religious classification further rendered the Will suspicious.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that under Rule 88 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, the Petitioners, as grandchildren of the deceased through a pre-deceased son, were excluded from inheritance by the surviving children (Respondents 1 - 3). Hence, they lacked caveatable interest and were not entitled to challenge the probate. The misstatement of religion was a clerical error, and the MOU was a contractual document unrelated to succession. The citation by publication was lawful under Rule 400, and the delay was adequately explained.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that under Rule 88 of Mulla’s Principles, the Petitioners were not legal heirs and had no caveatable interest under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act. However, it held that this technical defect could not shield the Respondents from consequences of fraud.
"Once the allegation of fraud, fabrication or concealment is brought to the notice of the Court, which is alleged to have been committed by the opposite party for obtaining letters of administration from a Court, it becomes the duty of the Court to look into such allegation..."
The Court found that the Respondents deliberately misrepresented the Petitioners’ status as legal heirs in the Testamentary Petition, despite knowing their address from the 2015 MOU. By invoking Rule 400 for publication service while concealing the known address, they made false statements on oath, violating the principle that parties must approach the Court with clean hands.
The Court further noted that the 13-year delay in filing for probate was inadequately explained, and Rule 382 required satisfactory justification - none was provided. The bequest to a complete stranger, coupled with the Respondents’ own prior acknowledgment of intestacy in the MOU, created a suspicious circumstance warranting judicial scrutiny.
The Court distinguished Hameed Jaffar Ahmed Ibrahim Mandeel and Moolla Cassim, which dealt with inheritance rights, from the present case, which involved fraud on the Court. It held that fraud vitiates all acts, and the probate court, as a court of conscience, cannot permit a grant obtained through deceit to stand.
The Verdict
The Petitioners succeeded. The Court held that probate obtained by fraud, suppression, or false representation is voidable irrespective of the petitioner’s legal standing, and ordered the revocation of the probate grant. The Respondents were directed to surrender the original probate document within eight weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fraud Overrides Technical Standing
- Practitioners must now argue that any allegation of fraud in probate proceedings - even by non-heirs - triggers the court’s duty to investigate.
- A petitioner need not prove inheritance rights to challenge probate; proving concealment, false affidavit, or misrepresentation is sufficient.
- Courts will not tolerate deliberate suppression of known addresses to evade citation, even if the party has no legal claim.
Probate Courts Are Courts of Conscience
- The testamentary court’s role is fiduciary; it must act as a guardian of truth in succession matters.
- Suspicious circumstances - such as bequests to strangers, unexplained delays, or inconsistent religious declarations - must be rigorously examined.
- Rule 382 on delay in probate applications is not a formality; unsatisfactory explanations invalidate non-contentious proceedings.
MOUs and Prior Conduct Can Reveal Fraud
- Documents like MOUs, affidavits, or settlement agreements executed prior to probate can be used to prove contradictory representations.
- If a party acknowledges someone as a co-owner or heir in one document, then denies their existence in probate proceedings, it constitutes evidence of suppression.
- Courts will treat such inconsistencies as prima facie fraud, shifting the burden to the probate applicant to justify the discrepancy.
