- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chrome Leather Company Ltd., Rep. By Its Manager A. Selvakumar v. Q. Dawson & Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was filed by Chrome Leather Company Ltd. (the appellant), a third party, against the dismissal of Application No. 2361 of 2011 in O.P. No. 382 of 2010, which sought revocation of the order probating the Will of the late George Joseph Chambers.
The material events stated in the opinion are:
- George Alexander Chambers (also G.A. Chambers) married three times and executed a Will in favour of his third wife, Ida L. Chambers, on 18.12.1930. Mrs. Ida later executed a Will on 29.10.1949.
- Chrome Leather Company Limited (the appellant) had been associated with property that formed part of the company. The company raised loans with Central Bank of India, defaulted, and the mortgaged property was sold at auction and purchased by the appellant.
- Subsequently, a person named George Joseph Chambers emerged, claiming to be an heir (a grandson) of G.A. Chambers.
- Mrs. Ida died issueless on 13.08.1930. In O.P. No. 178 of 1969, the Administrator-General sought probate of her Will and Letters of Administration were granted. An application by George Joseph Chambers to revoke that grant (Application No. 3899 of 2007) was dismissed on 08.07.2008.
- George Joseph Chambers died on 06.08.2008. Q. Dawson (the first respondent), claiming to be his power agent and executor of a Will dated 6.2.2008, filed O.P. No. 382 of 2010 and the Will was probated (the date of probate recorded as 06.08.2008 in the opinion).
- Chrome Leather Company Ltd. filed Application No. 2361 of 2011 to revoke the probate order dated 25.01.2011. Another group (Saroja, her children and others) filed Application No. 4402 of 2011 seeking similar relief. The learned single Judge allowed Application No. 4402 of 2011 (finding just cause and referring to Explanation (b) to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and fraudulent acts by the power of attorney), but dismissed the appellant's Application No. 2361 of 2011 on the ground that the appellant lacked caveatable interest and locus standi.
- The appellant appealed that dismissal; this appeal is the subject of the present opinion delivered by P. Devadass, J.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a third-party purchaser (Chrome Leather Company Ltd.), who purchased property included in the probated Will, has locus standi and a caveatable interest to apply for revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
- Whether the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the appellant's application for revocation on the ground that the appellant had no caveatable interest or locus standi.
- Whether the fact that another party (Saroja and others) obtained revocation of the probate renders the appellant's separate application moot or otherwise disposes of its entitlement to relief, and whether adverse observations made by the single Judge against the appellant should be allowed to stand.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel)
- The appellant relied on prior orders of this Court (W.P. Nos. 33248 and 33249 of 2007 cancelling the legal heir certificate granted to George Joseph Chambers, and W.P. No. 1435 of 2008 where a Division Bench described George Joseph Chambers and his power agent as land grabbers) to show the pedigree of the probate petitioner was suspect.
- Because the property purchased by the appellant at auction was included in the Will of George Joseph Chambers, the appellant possessed a caveatable interest and thereby locus standi to seek revocation of the probate order to protect its title/interest.
- The appellant cited Dr. R.A. Venkatesan v. D. Jenbagalakshmi & Others to support the proposition that even a fractional interest confers locus standi/caveatable interest and that such interest is not confined to blood relations or beneficiaries under the Will.
Respondent's Arguments (Mr. E.J. Ayyappan, for the first respondent)
- Since Application No. 4402 of 2011 filed by Saroja and others had been allowed and the probate order was revoked in their favour, there was nothing left for the appellant to seek by way of revocation; the relief sought by the appellant was therefore achieved by others.
- There cannot be multiple or duplicate orders cancelling the same probate order; accordingly the appellant's application had become otiose.
Other Respondents
- Respondents 4 to 9 supported the appellant in the facts and circumstances; the opinion records their support but does not detail separate argumentation beyond that support.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sadananda Pyme v. Harinam Sha, AIR 1950 Cal. 179 | A person holding an interest in the property in the event of intestacy has locus standi under Section 263 to cancel probate. | Used to support the proposition that an interest in property confers locus standi to seek revocation of probate. |
| Promode Kumar Roy v. Sephalika Dutta, AIR 1957 Cal. 631 | A person who acquired an interest in the testator's estate after death (and who may be a creditor) has locus standi to apply for revocation, especially where fraud on creditors is alleged. | Applied to show that post-death acquisition of interest (e.g., by purchase at auction) can confer locus standi to seek revocation. |
| Goods of Ganapati Sarkar, AIR 1959 Cal. 227 | The slightest interest in the estate entitles a person to be a party to probate proceedings. | Relied upon to underline that even minimal interest suffices to intervene in probate/probate-revocation matters. |
| Annapurna Kumar v. Subodh Chandra Kumar, AIR 1970 Cal. 433 | Any interest, however slight, or even a bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose testamentary disposition. | Reiterated by the Court to support the rule that minimal or possible interests permit opposition to probate. |
| Rao & Sons v. Chandamon, AIR 1971 Orissa 95 | Creditors of heirs at law of the testator are entitled to ask for revocation of probate and to enter caveat during probate proceedings. | Used to broaden the class of persons who may seek revocation beyond immediate blood relations. |
| Shanti Devi Agarwalla v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar, AIR 1972 Orissa 178 | Bare possibility of an interest suffices to oppose a testamentary instrument; purchaser stepping into vendor's shoes may enter caveat. | Applied to the factual posture where a purchaser of part of the property included in a Will is affected by competing testamentary dispositions. |
| Smt. Sima Rani Mohanti v. Puspa Rani Pal, AIR 1978 Cal. 140 | Reiteration of the principle in Annapurna Kumar that any interest, however slight, suffices. | Reinforced the settled position that slight interests confer entitlement to oppose probate. |
| Gita v. Mary Jenet James, 1995 (1) MLJ 467 | Explanation (a)–(e) to Section 263 are not exhaustive; the Court may revoke probate on other grounds where just cause exists; the explanations create a legal fiction but do not fetter the Court. | Relied upon to show the Court is not restricted to the enumerated explanations when deciding just cause to revoke probate. |
| S. Bhaskaran v. R. Loganathan, 2007 (6) MLJ 290 | Purchasers of property from a Class I heir have caveatable interest in probate proceedings, especially where the heir's interest may be life interest only. | Applied by the Court to confirm that purchasers step into the vendor's position and can claim caveatable interest. |
| Dr. R.A. Venkatesan v. D. Jenbagalakshmi & Others, 2012 [2] CTC 278 | Administration grants do not decide title; all persons with an interest in the estate may enter caveat and apply for revocation; property disposed of during deceased's life cannot be administered as part of the estate. | Used extensively to reinforce that a person with any interest in the estate is entitled to oppose or seek revocation and that the Court must consider whether property is available to be administered. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in a structured manner:
- The Court set out the factual matrix, emphasising that the appellant had purchased property at an auction sale and that the same property was included in the probated Will of George Joseph Chambers.
- The Court reviewed established case law to determine who may claim locus standi and caveatable interest under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The cited authorities consistently held that any interest, however slight (or even a bare possibility of interest), suffices to entitle a person to oppose probate or seek revocation.
- The Court noted authority that the explanations to Section 263 are not exhaustive and do not fetter the Court from revoking a grant where other circumstances amount to just cause.
- Applying these principles to the facts, the Court reasoned that because the appellant acquired the property at auction and that property was included in the probated Will, the appellant possesses an interest in the estate. On that basis, the appellant has a caveatable interest and locus standi to seek revocation.
- The Court found that the learned single Judge had not properly considered this aspect (the appellant's interest and consequent locus standi) when dismissing the appellant's application; therefore the dismissal on the ground of lack of locus standi was erroneous.
- However, the Court recognised that the substantive relief sought by the appellant (revocation of the probate) had in practice been obtained by another party (Saroja and others), whose application had been allowed. Thus, the specific relief sought might have been achieved elsewhere; but the Court was concerned with the correctness of the single Judge's observations against the appellant.
- To rectify the procedural posture and to ensure a meritorious disposal, the Court directed that the Original Petition be treated as a Testamentary Original Suit and remitted to the learned single Judge for disposal on merits expeditiously, explicitly instructing the Judge not to be influenced by the superfluous observations recorded earlier (para. 21 of the impugned judgment).
Holding and Implications
Holding:
The appeal is allowed in part: the Court held that the appellant (Chrome Leather Company Ltd.), as purchaser of property included in the probated Will, has a caveatable interest and locus standi to seek revocation of the probate. The impugned dismissal of the appellant's application on the ground of want of locus standi was not in accordance with law. The Original Petition is to be treated as a Testamentary Original Suit and remitted to the learned single Judge for disposal on merits expeditiously. The observations made by the learned single Judge in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment are declared superfluous and not in accordance with law and should not be taken into account when disposing of the Testamentary Original Suit.
Consequential orders recorded in the opinion: The appeal is disposed of accordingly, no costs were awarded, and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.
Implications
- Direct effect on the parties: The appellant's entitlement to be heard (locus standi / caveatable interest) is recognised and the matter is remitted for a fresh merits determination as a Testamentary Original Suit. The appellant's prior dismissal on the ground of no locus standi is set aside to the extent indicated.
- Procedural direction: The learned single Judge is instructed to dispose of the remitted suit on merits expeditiously and to ignore the disapproved observations recorded earlier.
- Precedential effect: The opinion applies and reiterates existing authorities on locus standi and caveatable interest; it does not purport to create a new legal principle but relies on established case law to reach its conclusion.
VCJ/VCS
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Devadass, J.:— As against the dismissal of Application No. 2361 of 2011 in O.P No. 382 of 2010 which has been filed to revoke the order probating the Will of late George Joseph Chambers, this appeal has been directed by Chrome Leather Company Ltd., a third party.
2. This appeal arose under the following circumstances:—
1) George Alexander Chambers also known as G.A Chambers married thrice. He amassed huge wealth particularly in Zamin Pallavaram. He founded Chrome Leather Company Limited. Huge track of property formed part of this company. While alive on 18.12.1930, he executed a Will in favour of his third wife Ida L. Chambers, whereunder, he had bequeathed considerable extent of property. He was not alive to witness the fight between his third wife and a son born to him through his another wife. But, to buy peace, there was compromise between them.
2) Thereafter, Mrs. Ida executed a Will on 29.10.1949 It appears that Chrome Leather Company Limited raised loans with Central Bank of India. The Company fell into huge arrears, naturally, the Bank enforced the mortgage. The property was brought to sale. It was purchased by a third party, namely, the appellant, at the auction.
3) Subsequently, one George Joseph Chambers emerged. He claimed himself a son of Kelland Huxford Chambers, who is son of Ethel Mary Chambers, who is first wife of George Alexander Chambers. George Joseph Chambers claimed himself an heir to late G.A Chambers, exactly as his grandson.
4) On 13.08.1930, Mrs. Ida died issueless. In O.P No. 178 of 1969, the Administrator-General sought for probating her Will. Letters of Administration was granted. George Joseph Chambers filed Application No. 3899 of 2007 to revoke it. However, On 08.07.2008, it was dismissed by the learned single Judge.
5) On 06.08.2008, George Joseph Chambers passed away. Q. Dawson, the first respondent herein, claiming himself as his Power Agent as well as executor of his Will dated 6.2.2008 filed O.P No. 382 of 2010 to probate the Will. On 06.08.2008, the Will has been probated.
6) Chrome Leather Company Limited, a third party filed Application No. 2361 of 2011 to revoke the Order dated 25.01.2011 Saroja, her children and also of her husband's 1st wife filed Application No. 4402 of 2011 seeking similar relief. On 25.1.2011, the learned single Judge allowed Application No. 4402 of 2011 on the ground that they have established a just cause and also referring to Explanation (b) to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 held that the power of attorney adopted certain fraudulent activities. However, the Application filed by the present appellant has been dismissed on the ground that he has no caveatable interest and he has no locus standi to seek a remedy.
3. Assailing the said order, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that already in W.P Nos. 33248 and 33249 of 2007, this Court cancelled the legal heir certificate granted to George Joseph Chambers. In W.P No. 1435 of 2008, a Division Bench of this Court dubbed George Joseph Chambers and his Power agent as land grabbers. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that since the property purchased by the appellant at the auction also has been included in the Will of George Joseph Chambers, the appellant has caveatable interest. Thus, necessarily, he has to protect his interest. So, he has a right to approach the Court to seek revocation of the order probating the Will of George Joseph Chambers. Thus, the observations of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the appellant's application is not in accordance with law.
4. The learned Senior Counsel cited Dr. Dr. R.A Venkatesan… v. D. Jenbagalakshmi & Others… [2012 [2] CTC 278 (D.B)] and submited that even if a third party has a fraction of right, he will have locus standi and caveatable interest. The locus standi of a person having caveatable interest cannot be restricted to persons related by blood to the testator or beneficiary under the Will or a person having an interest in the estate of the deceased. Under certain circumstances, persons having interest in the property can either oppose the order probating the Will or seek revocation of the order probating the Will.
5. On the other hand, Mr. E.J Ayyappan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that since the application filed by 4th respondent and her children has been allowed, the order probating the Will has been revoked and nothing survives for the present appellant to seek further relief. There cannot be double orders cancelling the very same order probating the Will.
6. Mr. R. Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 9 in the facts and circumstances of the case naturally supported the appellant.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Senior counsel and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents, perused the materials placed on record and carefully gone through the impugned order of the learned single Judge.
8. A third party, namely, the present management of Chrome Leather Company Limited, has purchased the property. This property also has been included in the probated Will of late George Joseph Chambers. Let us see the law first.
9. In Sadananda Pyme v. Harinam Sha [AIR 1950 Cal. 179], a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a person holding an interest in the property in the event of intestacy is one, who will have locus standi to file an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to cancel the Order probating the Will.
10. In Promode Kumar Roy… v. Sephalika Dutta…. [AIR 1957 Cal 631], a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a person who has acquired an interest in the testator's estate, though after his death, by reason of the mortgage transfer by the testator's son and who is undoubtedly also a creditor of the testator's said son, whom the alleged Will purports to disinherit has plainly locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant, particularly when his allegation is that the grant was obtained in fraud of the creditors.
11. In Goods of Ganapati Sarkar [AIR 1959 Cal. 227], it was held that a slightest interest in the estate will entitle a person a party to probate proceedings.
12. In Annapurna Kumar v. Subodh Chandra Kumar [AIR 1970 Cal. 433], it was held that any interest, however, slight, and even a bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose a testamentary disposition.
13. In Rao & Sons v. Chandamon [AIR 1971 Orissa 95], the Court went to the extent of holding that creditors of the heirs at law of the testator were entitled to ask for revocation of probate and enter caveat during probate proceedings in response to a general citation.
14. In Shanti Devi Agarwalla v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar [AIR 1972 Orissa 178], a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court held that even bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose testamentary instrument. In the said case, part of the property was purchased from one of the Legatees relying on second Will. That purchaser would be affected if probate is granted through first Will. The learned single Judge has held that vendor legatee is entitled to enter caveat in respect of first Will, the purchaser having stepped into the shoes of the vendor is also entitled to enter caveat.
15. In Smt. Sima Rani Mohanti… v. Puspa Rani Pal…. [AIR 1978 Cal. 140], the Division Bench reiterated the proposition laid down in Annapurna Kumar [AIR 1970 Cal. 433].
16. In Gita v. Mary Jenet James [1995 (1) MLJ 467 : 1995 (2) LW 831], it was held that Explanation (a) to (e) in Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not exhaustive and the Court is not fettered by the explanation while deciding whether there is just cause for revocation of a grant. It is held that the explanation would only mean that in cases, where one of the circumstances set out in clauses (a) to (e) is present, a legal fiction comes into existence to the effect that in such cases, there is just cause for revocation. If there are circumstances, which do not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (e), but which warrant or necessitate the revocation of the grant, the Court is entitled to revoke the grant or annul the same even though there is no legal fiction.
17. In S. Bhaskaran v. R. Loganathan [2007 (6) MLJ 290 : 2007-4-L.W. 740], the Appellant claimed to have purchased the property through Ranganayaki, who is a Class I heir of Purushothaman. Observing that any interest howsoever slight, is sufficient to entitle to oppose the grant, the Division Bench held as under:—
“Purchasers of property from a Class I heir, have caveatable interest in the probate proceedings initiated in respect of the Will executed by the husband of the said Class I heir, especially when the said Class I heir is alleged to have only life interest over the property.”
18. In Dr. Dr. R.A Venkatesan… v. D. Jenbagalakshmi & Others… [2012 [2] CTC 278], a Division Bench of this Court held as under:—
“13. A grant of administration does not decide any question of title. It merely decides the right to administer. When deciding the grant of Letters of Administration, the Court would not go into the question of title. When a person seeks Letters of Administration under Section 218 of Indian Succession Act, it is sufficient if the applicant for Letters of Administration alleges that there is a property to be distributed and that he is entitled to the whole or part of it. Although it is not necessary for the Court to decide what assets are likely to come to the hands of the applicant for Letters of Administration. Court is duty bound to consider whether there is any estate at all to be administered. Court need to specify whether any property was left by the deceased.
[emphasis supplied by us]
14. ……………….No application of Letters of Administration can be entertained to an estate which was already disposed of even during the life time of the deceased. When property was already disposed of even during the life time of deceased, Respondents have a right to show before the Court that the schedule property is not available to be administered.
[emphasis supplied by us]
15. All persons who have “an interest in the estate of the deceased” and are entitled to enter caveat and oppose the grant of probate under Section 263 of the Act are also entitled to apply for revocation of the probate. It is well established that any interest, however slight is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration/Probate.”
19. The appellant acquired the property, exactly, Chrome Leather Company Limited in the auction purchase. This property is also included in the Will of late George Joseph Chambers. That Will has been probated at the instance of the probate petitioner Q. Dawson, the 1st respondent herein. The Court has the duty to see what exactly the property available. For instance, if a property included in the Will has already been disposed of, the buyer of the property, even the person who lent money on the property, a mortgager will have right to oppose probating the Will and also seek revocation of the order probating the Will.
20. In the case before us, the appellant has acquired the property at an auction sale. The appellant has an interest in the property. Thus, the appellant has a caveatable interest to seek revocation of the order probating the Will of late George Joseph Chambers. But, this aspect has not been properly considered by the learned single Judge. Thus, the appellant will have locus standi to seek remedy.
21. Now, the relief sought for by the appellant, viz., revocation of the probate, as rightly submitted by Mr. E.J Ayyappan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, has been achieved in the application filed by Saroja and others. But, observations made by the Single Judge, against the appellant will cause havoc. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the Original petition has to be treated as Testamentary Original Suit.
22. In fine, the Original petition shall be treated as Testamentary Original Suit. The observations of the learned single Judge made in para. 21 of the impugned judgment is superfluous, uncalled for and it is not in accordance with law. The learned single Judge is requested to dispose of the Testamentary Original Suit on merits and in accordance with law, not being carried away by any of the said observations in his said order. We would also request the learned single Judge to dispose of the Testamentary Original Suit expeditiously. The learned Single Judge need not take into account any of the observations made while disposing of the Testamentary Original Suit. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.
VCJ/VCS
Alert