On 21.04.2026, the Supreme Court passed a significant judgement in S. Leorex Sebastian & Another v. Sarojini & Others (2026 INSC 400) holding that a probate granted by supressing material facts and without citing interested parties, can be revoked under Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“Act”).
Background:
The dispute involves an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976 purportedly executed by one Eswaramurthy Gounder bequeathing properties in favour of his daughter Sarojini. However, Eswaramurthy Gounder sold the very same properties by a registered sale deed in 1976, shortly after executing the unregistered Will.
In 2009, Sarojini obtained a probate for the unregistered Will without impleading her siblings or the purchasers of the properties. Eight days later, Sarojini also filed a suit for declaration alleging that her brothers obtained her father’s signatures to dispose properties. Interestingly, Sarojini remained silent about the sale of the properties in her probate proceedings.
The purchasers of the properties filed a petition under Sec. 263 of the Act to revoke the probate granted in favour of Sarojini, which was allowed by the District Court. The Madras High Court, however, set aside the said revocation leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Supreme Court:
- Whether the Madras High Court was justified in setting aside the Order of revocation passed by the District Court?
- Whether a purchaser (prior to filing of a petition for probate) is an interested party to the proceedings and is entitled to receive notice of the same?
- Whether suppression of material facts relating to the sale of the properties constitutes “just cause” for revocation under Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act?
Scope of Sec. 263:
Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act permits revocation or annulment of probate for “just cause”. This includes amongst other grounds:
- proceedings defective in substance,
- fraud or concealment of material facts, and
- untrue allegations of essential facts.
By way of illustration, the Act clarifies that a probate granted without citation to necessary parties constitutes a ground for revocation.
Further, as the grant of probate is a judgement in rem, the same binds not just the parties to the case but the public at large. Consequently, any person aggrieved by the judgement who did not have prior notice of the proceedings is entitled to seek revocation. This position has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Basanti Devi v. Ravi Prakash Ram Prasad Jaiswal [(2008) 1 SCC 26].
Right of Purchasers:
The Supreme Court in this judgement specifically dealt with the issue of purchasers of properties prior to commencement of probate proceedings and their right to seek revocation of probate.
In Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha [(2008) 4 SCC 300] and C. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar (2008 (10) SCC 489) the Supreme Court observed that if a party has a caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, he/she is entitled to be served before the final order is passed. Further, if a person who has even a slight interest in the estate of the testator, he/she is entitled to file a caveat and contest the grant of the probate of the will of the testator.
In Banwarilal v. Kusum Bai (1972 SCC Online MP 55), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that any interest, however slight, even the bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose a testamentary document. Thus, a purchaser who acquires an interest in the estate of the testator by reason of a transfer by the heirs at law after his death, is entitled to citation because he is a person “who ought to have been cited” as contemplated in the illustrations of the Sec. 263.
In Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar & Others [(1976) 4 SCC 554], the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and observed that the said position is true and correct position in law but distinguished that alienees pendente lite would be on a different footing from those prior to commencemet of probate proceedings. The Supreme Court further observed that no citation is needed for individuals who did not have an interest in the property prior to commencement of probate proceedings.
Summarising the above judgements amongst others, the Supreme Court held that an alienee who acquires an interest in the estate of the deceased prior to the filing of probate proceedings is an interested party entitled to citation to contest the grant.
In the present case, the appellants had purchased the suit properties through registered sale deeds in 1997, well before the probate petition was filed in 2009. They were, therefore, interested parties who ought to have been cited.
On Suppression of Material Facts:
The Supreme Court found that Sarojini had supressed material facts while obtaining the probate. Most tellingly, just eight days after filing the probate petition, she filed a civil suit for declaration in relation to the sale of properties by her father. This established that she had knowledge of the sale and yet to chose to supress this information in the probate proceedings.
Given that the sales had taken place by the Testator through registered instruments, Sarojini was duty bound to implead the subsequent purchasers to the proceedings. Further, Sarojini’s failure to implead her brothers to the proceedings was also a defect. Thus, the revocation of the probate by the District Court on these grounds was justified.
Other Grounds for Revocation:
Apart from the primary grounds of suppression of material facts and non-citation of interested parties, the District Court also revoked the probate as the Will had not been proved in accordance with law as no attesting witness was examined and no adequate explanation was forthcoming for such failure.
Madras High Court’s Error:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed a grave error in setting aside the Order of the District Court by focussing on the principle that testamentary courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on title. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court failed to appreciate the specific findings of the District Court on fraud, suppression, non-impleadment of interested parties, and removal of the original Will from the custody of Court which is in violation of Sec. 294 of the Act, which are key factors while deciding a case of this nature.
Conclusion:
- A probate is a judgment in rem and binds the world at large. Any person who is an interested party but has not been given proper notice of the case may file a petition under Sec. 263 of the Act for revocation.
- Any person who acquired interest in the testator's estate before the commencement of probate proceedings is an interested party entitled to be cited.
- Suppression of material facts constitutes fraud vitiating the grant of probate.
- High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 must address the specific factual findings and cannot set aside a reasoned revocation order by ignoring concrete findings of fraud and procedural defects.
