Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and N.R. Borkar in the case of Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary v. Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka (2025) held that the explanations (a) to (e) to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are illustrative and not exhaustive in determining "just cause" for revoking or annulling grants of Probate or Letters of Administration. 

What was the Background of Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary v. Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka (2025) Case? 

Factual Background: 

• Rajesh Chowdhary, domiciled in Ecuador, died on 25th July 2020 by suicide (suffocation by hanging). 
• On 9th December 2020, the respondent filed Testamentary Petition No. 109 of 2021 seeking probate of a Will allegedly executed on 3rd March 2022 by the deceased. 
• The petitioner (son of the deceased) filed a caveat on 20th May 2021 with supporting affidavit. 
• Due to the advocate's failure to remove office objections, the caveat was dismissed. 
• On 10th November 2023, the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master granted probate. 

Petitioner's Challenge: 

• The petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition for revocation of the probate grant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 
• The petitioner contended that the deceased died under suspicious circumstances. 
• The affidavits of two attesting witnesses revealed that while the testator signed the Will in Ecuador, the witnesses signed it in India, allegedly violating Section 63 of the Succession Act, which requires attesting witnesses to sign in the presence of the testator. 
• The petitioner argued that legitimate objections couldn't be presented due to the caveat's dismissal for technical reasons. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Key Principles Applied: 

The Division Bench relied on principles of statutory interpretation: 

• Function of Explanation Clauses: An explanation clarifies the main provision without expanding or restricting its scope and must be read harmoniously with the main section. 
• Significance of "Deemed": The word creates a legal fiction. In circumstances covered by explanations (a) to (e), just cause is automatically presumed to exist, but this doesn't exclude just cause in other circumstances. 
• Purposive Construction: When language permits multiple interpretations, courts must adopt the interpretation that advances legislative purpose and avoids absurdity. 
• Legislative Intent: The deliberate change from "just cause is" to "shall be deemed to exist where" reflects legislative intent to broaden judicial discretion while creating a deeming fiction for specified circumstances. 

Judicial Precedents Examined: 

• Earlier cases like Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Sakwarbai (1902) interpreted the earlier Acts' provisions as exhaustive under different statutory language. 
• George Anthony Harris (1933) and Sharad Shankarrao Mane (1997) held explanations to be exhaustive but failed to consider the changed phraseology in the 1925 Act. 
• Courts in Madras, Calcutta, and other jurisdictions had recognized that "just cause" extends beyond enumerated grounds. 

Key Holdings: 

1. Explanations are Illustrative: The explanations (a) to (e) to Section 263 are illustrative, not exhaustive, in determining "just cause" for revoking probate. 
2. Broader Judicial Discretion: Circumstances not covered under explanations (a) to (e) can constitute "just cause" for revocation, to be determined by courts based on facts and circumstances of each case. 
3. Earlier Precedents Overruled: The judgments in George Anthony Harris (1933) and Sharad Shankarrao Mane (1997) do not lay down the correct position of law regarding Section 263. 

Application to Present Case: 

The Court noted the petitioner's legitimate concerns: 

• The deceased's suspicious death by suicide in Ecuador. 
• Potential violation of Section 63's requirement that witnesses sign in the testator's presence (witnesses signed in India while testator signed in Ecuador). 
• Serious objections couldn't be considered due to caveat's dismissal for technical reasons. 
• The Court held these circumstances may constitute "just cause" requiring judicial examination, even if not falling strictly within explanations (a) to (e). 

 What is Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925? 

Provision: 

• Section 263 provides that the grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for "just cause." 

Explanation to Section 263: 

The Explanation states that "just cause shall be deemed to exist where": 

• (a) The proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or 
• (b) The grant was obtained fraudulently by making false suggestions or concealing material facts; or 
• (c) The grant was obtained through untrue allegations essential in law to justify the grant, even if made in ignorance or inadvertently; or 
• (d) The grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or 
• (e) The grantee wilfully omitted to exhibit inventory or account, or exhibited an untrue inventory/account. 

Illustrations: 

The section includes eight illustrations demonstrating situations such as lack of jurisdiction, forged wills, discovery of later wills, and unsound mind of the grantee. 

Legislative History: 

• Indian Succession Act, 1865 (Section 234) and Probate and Administration Act, 1881 (Section 50): Used the phrase "Just cause is" followed by enumerated grounds. 
• Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 263): Changed the language to "Just cause shall be deemed to exist where," marking a significant phraseological departure.