Sanjib Banerjee - (1.) OBEDIENT beacon-flashing servants of the country, who have taken a giant first step in delivering the constitutional promise of a social revolution by creating a siren-wailing uber-caste of those in power, can take solace; even monks who have relinquished their material possessions and surrendered themselves to serve their religious order crave for power. Two ascetics battle it out in this Court of a material order to appropriate the legacy of their spiritual leader. Only, a minor problem has arisen in the temporal assessment of the class of persons who would be qualified to question the execution and validity of a will by a person who had renounced the material world.
(2.) THE present application is by the propounder seeking discharge of the caveat lodged by a fellow disciple of the mendicant testator. THE point urged is that the caveator has no caveatable interest. The propounder refers to the section 283 of the Succession Act, 1925 and the judicial interpretation thereof. Reliance has been placed on a judgment reported at (2010) 5 SCC 157 (Jagjit Singh v. Pamela Manmohan Singh) which considered the previous pronouncements on such aspect before referring the issue as to the ambit of caveatable interest to a larger bench. The propounder has also referred to an unreported judgment of this Court rendered on July 28, 2010 in GA No. 1643 of 2010, GA No. 1719 of 2010 and PLA No. 260 of 2009 (In the goods of Smt. Indumati Girja Shankar Ojha @ Indumati G. Ojha, Deceased). The following passage from the unreported judgment has been placed: 'The expression "interest in the estate" appearing in section 283(1) (c) of the Succession Act may not imply an interest in the property of the alleged testator. If it is the accepted position that a probate Court does not adjudicate upon the title of the testator but merely looks at authenticity of the document under which whatever title was possessed by the testator is passed on to others, it can be appreciated that the expression "interest in the estate" would not involve an interest, whether of title or otherwise, claimed in any property that had been owned by the testator. The expression would imply that if a person could demonstrate that if the Will was not there, succession otherwise would have given the applicant an interest or a right to the estate - not by virtue of title claimed adverse to the testator - then the applicant would have, what has now come to be known as, a caveatable interest..." The caveator does not question the alleged testator's authority to identify his successor as the head of the order, including the right to do so by a testamentary document. The caveator submits that the alleged testator had already gifted his material belongings to the math. It is submitted that the nature of bequest that is sought to be established by virtue of the alleged Will would give the caveator an interest in the estate of the deceased. The caveator contends that the ordinary heir in intestacy of the deceased would neither have any right nor interest in the passing of the office of the mahant or achariya, but it would only be such person who may have made a claim to the office of Achariya but for the alleged Will who would have caveatable interest to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate.
(3.) THE expression "any interest in the estate of the deceased" is left unlimited in section 283(1)(c) of the Act. THE grant of probate is conclusive as to the validity and contents of a Will, so far as it extends to personal property. It is not necessary at this stage to consider as to whether the right to name a successor as the head of the order was a personal property of the deceased, particularly since the caveator does not question it. THE Will that is sought to be propounded indicates the successor. If the right to nominate a successor of the order was a personal property of the deceased, any person apparently entitled to succeed the deceased as the head of the order would have an interest in the estate of the deceased, within the meaning of the expression in the relevant provision, since their right to name a successor is sought to be given effect to by the alleged Will. In Jagjit Singh, the Supreme Court noticed the tests as to caveatable interest as summarised in the judgment reported at (2008) 4 SCC 300 (Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rqjendra Singh Lodha). Jagjit Singh also noticed another judgment reported at (2008) 10 SCC 489 (G. Gopal v. C. Baskar). The reference to a larger Bench was on account of the perceived conflict between Krishna Kumar Birla and G. Gopal since the former seemed to narrow the meaning of the expression "caveatable interest" while the latter found that any person who had a slight interest in the estate of the testator was entitled to lodge a caveat and contest the grant of probate.;