Holding

A caveat may be filed only by a person who possesses a definite, real interest in the estate of the deceased; mere speculative or contingent claims, including those based solely on executor status or distant family ties, do not constitute a caveatable interest.

Summary

The case concerned the grant of probate of a 1999 will of Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) and earlier 1982 mutual wills executed by her and her husband. Several members of the Birla family filed caveats claiming a "caveatable interest" in the estate, while Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL) sought probate and the discharge of those caveats. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "caveatable interest" under Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and held that only a person with a definite, real interest in the testator’s estate – not a speculative or merely contingent claim – may maintain a caveat. It clarified that Section 284 provides merely a forum and does not prescribe qualifications, and that the Calcutta High Court Rules correctly require a preliminary determination of such interest. Consequently, the Court allowed RSL’s appeal challenging the appointment of Yashovardhan Birla as executor and dismissed the other appeals.

Issues considered

The meaning and scope of "caveatable interest" under Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
Whether executors or agnates without a definite interest can file a caveat
The validity of the Calcutta High Court Rules framing a preliminary issue on caveatable interest
The effect of mutual wills on probate and the rights of parties

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 122
Constitution of Indias. Article 227
Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 15, s. 8
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 283, s. 284, s. 285, s. 286, s. 2(c), s. 2(h)
Indian Trusts Act, 1882s. 73
Probate and Administration Act, 1881s. 69, s. 70, s. 71, s. 72, s. 73, s. 83

Subjects

caveatable interestprobateIndian Succession Actmutual willsexecutorHindu Succession ActSection 284Calcutta High Court Rulesestatesuccession

Judgment

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 640

)-
A KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA
v
RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 2008)
MARCH 31, 2008
B
(S.8. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) ..
Succession- Indian Succession Act, 1925- Section 2(c),
2(h), 283, 284, 285 & 286 - Calcutta High Court Rules, 1940
c - Rule 4, 5(a), 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30- Indian Trusts Act,
1882 - Section 73 - Probate And Administration Act, 1881 -
Section 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 & 83.
Caveatable interest means an interest in the estate of
the deceased to which the caveator would otherwise be entitled
D to and having a special interest therein - Caveatable interest
may arise only after suit for enforcement of mutual Will is
+
decreed.
Manner of filing an application for grant of probate -
Jurisdiction of Probate Court - Discussed.
E
Construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest
of any other person to whom a citation is to be issued or a
caveator, must have some interest in the estate of the testator.
,.
Judgment rendered in a probate proceedings - Not
F determinative of the question of title.
)l
...
Scope and applicability of Section 284 of Indian
Succession Act.
Interpretation of Statutes:
G
Purposive construction to be resorted to having regard
to the purport and object of the Act. ,__
While interpreting the provisions of a statute, one must +
also bear in mind the admitted legal position that a probate
H 640
-·
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 641
AND OTHERS
1 i proceeding should not be converted into a title suit. A
.. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S. 122 - High Court
could frame Rules under the power conferred to it- Constitution
of India, Article 227.

Precedent - What could be done and has not been done B
by a Court of equity does not create precedent.

Words & Phrases:

"Ceasing to be" - "contention" - Meaning of

PDB and MPB were very wealthy persons. and c
owned an industrial empire known as Birla Group of
Industries. Both of them had executed mutual wills on
identical terms on or about 10.5.1981 bequeathing his/her
respective estate(s). Later, the wills were revoked and
another set of mutual wills were executed on 13.7.1982 D
and four executors were appointed in each set of will.
-t
MPB died on 30.7.1990. On or about 18.4.1999, PDB
executed her last will bequeathing her entire estate to tlJe
first respondent RSL, appointing him as the sole executor.
E
PDB died on 3.7 .2004.
RSL filed an application for grant of probate. The
appellants in the connected appeals filed caveats. RSL
took out an application seeking discharge of caveats
entered into by KKB, BKB, GPB and YB before the High F
Court.
..,
~ A suit was filed by the surviving executors of the 1982
wills for a declaration that RSL was not entitled to deal
with the assets of PDB in any manner contrary to and
inconsistent with terms of the 1982 will. G

Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
application of discharge of caveats filed by KKB, BKB and
YB; caveat filed by GPB was retained. Application filed
+ for discharge of caveat of RSL was also dismissed.
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.

)-
,.
A Appeals were filed before the High Court. Cross
objections were filed by RSL against retaining the caveat
filed by KKB, SKB and YB as also the appointment of YB
as the executor of MPB. The appeals and the cross
objections were dismissed. Hence the appeals.
B On the basis of the contentions raised by the parties,
the question involved in the appeals is what is a cavetable +
interest within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act
vis-a-vis the rules framed by the Calcutta High Court in
the year 1940.
c Allowing Civil Appeal No. 2278 of 2008 filed by RSL
challenging the appointment of YB, and dismissing the
other appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A suit in respect of property over which
D probate would have effect, must have a direct nexus with
the estate of the testator and not to enforce a right in
respect of the application of the estate of the testator +
under another will. Right to maintain a suit must be
independent of the wills sought to be probated. No legal
right accrues under an unprobated Will except in case
E
where taking of probate is not mandatory. [Para 76]
[683-D-E] '.

1.2 A suit which would be maintainable must have
·something to do with the estate of the testator. Inheritance
F by Will itself may be a subject matter of contention.
Whether the interest claimed by the caveator is an ,..
established one or a bare claim must satisfy the test that A
there exists an interest in the estate of the testator and
the same is not adverse thereto. [Para 78] [684-D]
G Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera
(1990) 3 SCC 333; Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardayal Singh
Dhillon and others 2007 (12) SCALE 282; Chiranjilal Shrilal
Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 and Basanti
Devi v. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal (2007) 12 SCALE
+
H 542 - relied on.
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 643
AND on:ERS

Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass ILR 17 Calcutta 48; A
Prijoshah Bhikaji v. Pestonji Merwanji 12 Born LR 366;
Rahamtullah Sahib v. Rama Rau & Anr. ILR 17 Madras 373;
Nikunj Kumar Lohia v Narayan Prasad Garodia & Others 1996
,1) CHN 205; Goods of Mohammad Bashir (deceased) AIR
1964 Cal 34; Smt. Namita Singha v. Joydeb Chandra Paul B
AIR 2006 Cal 230; M.S. Saraswathi v. M.S. Selvadurai &
Anr.(1997) 3 LW 541 (Mad); Mrs. Perviz Sarosh Batliwal/a &
Anr. v. Mrs. Viloo Plumber & Anr.AIR 2000 Born 189; Rajiv
Ramprasad Gupta v. Rustom Sam Boyee AIR 2003 Born 242;
Nobeen Chander Sil and others v. Bhobosoondari Debee ILR c
6 Calcutta 460; G. Jayakumar v. R. Ramaratnam AIR 1972
Mad 212; Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaran Chandra Biswas
and others AIR 1932 Calcutta 734 and Gourishankar
Chattoraj v. Smt. Satyabati Debi AIR 1931 Calcutta 470 -
referred to.
D
2.1 Two sisters of MPB being alive (one of them is
-+ since deceased), indisputably in the event the application
for grant of probate of RSL in respect of the 1999 Will is
refused they will have an interest in the estate of the
testatrix. The right of the said sisters of MPB being definite E
and clear, it is not a case where it is necessary to apply
the bare possibility or the common ancestor test. [Para 93]
[689-C-D]
2.2 Both MPB and PDB claimed their interest in certain
companies. The subject matter of the Will is not the F
,
• ancestral property over which the caveators claim any
interest. It is one thing to say that the subject matter of
the will is 'coparcenary' or a 'joint family property' in which
case the larger concept of interest in the agnates would
apply, but it is another thing to say that if people are G
available who would otherwise represent the interest of
the estate and against whom citations have been issued,
others who have no interest would also be entitled to enter
a caveat. [Para 94] [689-D-F]
H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A Brindaban Chandra Shaha v. Sureshwar Shaha
Parmanick and others 10 Cal. LJ 263 and Gourishankar
Chattoraj v. Smt. Satyabati Debi AIR 1931 Cal 470 - held
inapplicable.
Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraj Saha v. Sara/a Sundari Dassya
B wlo Hara/a/ Saha AIR 1940 Calcutta 296 - referred to.
+
3. A Will is executed when the owner of a property
forms an opinion that his/ her estate should not devolve
upon the existing heirs according to the law governing
c intestate succession. When, thus, a person who would
have otherwise succeeded to the estate of the testator,
would ordinarily have a caveatable interest, any other
person must ordinarily show a special interest in the
estate. Such a special interest may be a creditor of the
deceased. But, the same would not mean that even if the
D
estate of the deceased is being represented by the legal
heirs, caveat can be entertained at the instance of a person
who has no real interest therein or in other words would
+
merely have a contingent interest. [Para 97, 98] [689-C-F]

E Radharaman Chowdhuri and others vs. Gopa/ Chandra
•
Chakravarty AIR 1920 Calcutta 459 and Sara/a Sundari
Dassya v. Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraf Saha (Firm) AIR 1944
PC 11 - referred to.
4. A transferee pendente lite without the leave of the
F court would not have a caveatable interest and as such
cannot be impleaded as a party. A person cannot also be
impleaded as a party even on an apprehension that those
..
who have a caveatable interest and to whom citations
have been made would not take any interest in the
G litigation. [Para 99] [689-F-G]
Jagdish Chander v. State & Anr. 1988 RLR 678 and Sunil
Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra & Ors. 2007 (12) SCALE 59 - referred
to. +
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 645
AND OTHERS

5. A statute must be interpreted having regard to the A
purport and object of the Act. The doctrine of purposive
construction must be resorted to in a case of this nature.
The court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable
legislator. In so doing, it would not be permissible for the
court to construe the provisions in such a manner which B
would destroy the very purpose for which the same was
+ enacted. The principles in regard to the approach of the
Court in interpreting the provisions of a statute with the
change in the societal condition must also be borne in
mind. [Para 104] [693-B-C; 694-F] c
New Indian Assurance co: v. Nusli Neville Wadia and
Anr. 2007 (14) SCALE 556; Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 81, para 22
and Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association of India & Ors. (2007)
13 SCALE 762 - relied on. D
6.1 The decisions which were rendered prior to
coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, thus, may
not be of much relevance. Now, if on the interpretation of
law, as then stood, a reversioner or a distant relative who
could have succeeded to the interest of the testator was E
entitled to file a caveat, they would not be now, as the law
of inheritance and succession is governed by a
Parliamentary Act. [Para 106] [695-E-F]
6.2 Directly or indirectly the appellants and in F
particular KKB is questioning the title or disposing power
of the testator, which is impermissible in a probate
proceeding. Appellants, in fact, have been prevaricating
their stand from proceeding to proceeding. They have
been raising various contentions which are wholly
G
i~permissible in law. [Para 107] [695-G]

6.3 If anybody and everybody including a busy body
or an interloper is found to be entitled to enter a caveat
and oppose, grant of a probate, then Sections 283(1)(c)
and 284 of the 1925 Act would have been differently H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A worded. Such an interpretation would lead to an
anomalous situation. It is, therefore, not possible to
accede to the submission that caveatable interest should
be construed very widely. [Para 109] [696-C]
6.4 A caveatable interest is not synonymous with the
8 word 'contention'. A 'contention' can be raised only by a
person who has a caveatable interest. The dictionary
meaning of 'contention', therefore; in the aforementioned
context cannot have any application in a proceeding
under the 1925 Act. While interpreting the provisions of a
C statute, one must also bear in mind the admitted legal
position that a probate proceeding should not be permitted
to be converted into a title suit. It should not be permitted
to become an unchartered field to be trespassed into by
persons even if he is not affected by testamentary
D disposition. [Para 110 and 111] [696-D-F]
7. Section 284 of the 1925 Act only provides for a +
forum and nothing more. It has nothing to do with
qualification. Drawing attention to the decisions prevailing
prior to coming into force of the 1925 Act, as also the
E decision of the Bombay High Court it was contended that
the legislature having not changed the wordings of the
earlier statute despite judicial interpretation of the
terminologies thereof, must be held to have not intended
to rectify the same. It is not necessary to go into the said
F question as the decisions upon which reliance has been
placed are either not good law or not relevant for the
present purpose. [Para 113, 114] [696-H; 697-A-C]
Pirajshah Bikhaji & Others v. Pestonji Merwanji (1910)
G ILR 34 Bombay 459 - referred to.
8. The Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court
provide for determination of the issue of caveatable
interest as a preliminary issue. There is no reason as to
why the High Court, in exercise of its powers conferred
H upon it under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 647
AND OTHERS

could not frame such Rules. After coming into force of A
the Constitution such Rules can also be framed by the
High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the contention is
to be accepted that there being no such provision in the
Act for determination of such an issue as preliminary s
issue, the High Court could not have framed the Rules,
This Court is of the opinion that in a similar situation this
Court also could not direct listing of the writ petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for preliminary
hearing in terms of the Supreme Court Rules. The Court c
having regard to its general power as also the power
under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
can decide the matter by framing preliminary issues in
regard to the maintainability or otherwise of the
application. It is a rule of procedure and not of substance.
0
A court is entitled to dismiss a lis at the threshold if it is
found not maintainable. The Court even in absence of any
rule must take the precaution of not indulging in wasteful
expenditure of its time at the instance of the litigants who
have no case at all. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in
the Rules. [Para 115] [697-D-H; 698-A] E
9.1 A Will by its nature is revocable. It is the last desire
of the testator. Till he breathes his last, he will have a final
say. In short, the latter Will revoking the earlier Will would
be probated. It is one thing to say that the agreement F
between the parties to the purported mutual Will would
not affect any agreement or arrangement on the
application of the latter Will or the estate of the testator
must be administered in terms of such agreement.
[Para 116] [698-C-D]
G
9.2 Despite the existence of a mutual Will, the
representative under the latter Will will take the property.
\ He, however, takes the property subject to the terms of
the Mutual Will. Whether there exists any such agreement
enforceable either in equity or by way of a suit for specific H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A performance, will have to be considered only in the
event the probate is granted and not prior thereto. [Para
116] [698-E-F]
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 50,
page 108; Lewin on Trusts, Seventeenth Edition, pages 270-
B 271; Theobald on Wills, Sixteenth edition, pages 26, 27
(Paras 2.09 & 2.11) and Williams, Mortimer and Sunnucks
on Executors, Administrators and Probate, 18th edition, pages
131-132 - referred to.
c 10. What could be done and has not been done by a
court of equity does not create a precedent. It does not
even have a persuasive value. In this country, we are
bound to follow the law laid down under the statute or
the decision which create binding precedents. An
observation made by a Court of Probate would not
0
persuade this Court to hold that the High Court should
have taken recourse to "advance from the region of
testamentary disposition into that of contracts and trusts
and to declare certain trusts upon the footing of
contract" which could be done by the Chancery Division.
E [Para 123] [701-C-D]
Kuppuswami Raja and another v. Perumal Raja and
Others AIR 1964 Madras 291 - distinguished.
Walker and Another v. Gaskill and Others [1914] P. 192
F - referred to.
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Vol. 79, page
850 and Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. XCVll, pages 304 to
312 - referred to.
G 11. A Will made in prejudice of an agreement will
nevertheless be effective as a Will as it is by its very nature
and by its very essence a revocable instrument. A
subsequent infringing .Will would be valid even if it
revokes an earlier Mutual Will. Similarity of the terms would +
H not be enough to establish the necessary agreement.
.·i ~··.'
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 649
AND OTHERS

Whether a legatee has taken any benefit under the alleged A
Wills of 1982 would, however, be relevant. [Para 132]
[705-E-H]
Dilharshankar C. Bhachech v. Controller of Estate Duty
(1986) 1 SCC 701 and Shiva Nath Prasad v. State of WB.
and Others (2006) 2 SCC 757 - referred to. B
Branchflower et al v. Massey 208 P. 2d 341; Birmingham
and Others v. Renfrew and Others 57 C.L.R. 666 and Re Dale
(deceased) Proctor v. Dale (1993) 4 All ER 129 - referred to.
12.1 It is too far fetched a submission that a person C
having a remote family connection or as an agnate is
entitled to file a caveat. A reversioner or an agnate or a
family member can maintain a caveat only when there is
a possibility of his inheritance of the property in the event
the probate of the Will is not granted. If there are heirs 0
intestate who are alive, entertaining of a caveat on the part
of another family member or a reversioner or an agnate
or cognate would never arise. The Hindu Succession Act,
1956 has brought about a sea change in the matter of
inheritance and succession. Agnate or cognates are, thus,
recognized as heirs. They may be the erstwhile members E
of a nuclear family. So far as heirs and legal
representatives of the family are concerned, the Hindu
Succession Act clearly lays down five classes of heirs,
Sisters of husband belong to Class II heir. They succeeded
to the interest of MPB in 2004 on the death of PDB. F
Appellants accepted the said fact but contended that as
the life of the said heirs was uncertain they, thus, have a
caveatable interest. It has been accepted that there would
be no difficulty in ascertaining the successors of PDB. It
is an indisputable case of intestacy having regard to G
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. [Para 133, 134,
135] [706-A-F]
t 12.2 Inheritance to an estate never remains in
abeyance. In the event of death of the sisters of MPB, their
heirs and legal representatives would inherit the property H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R

A in their own right and not as the heirs of MPB. The dispute
regarding intestacy does not change the law of
succession and inheritance. As Agnates KKB, BKB, YB
and GPB also claimed caveatable interest as agnates.
Entry 2 of Class II of the Schedule appended to the Hindu
8 Succession Act in this case would not bring them into
the picture, as agnates will acquire an interest only when
there is no heir of either Class I or Class II. When there
exists Class II heirs, the appellants would not have any
real interest in the property. The property upon the death
of Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta
C would pass on to their legal heirs. Appellants being not
the heirs of MPB or PDB have no caveatable interest. [Para
137, 138] [707 -A-D]
13.1 The theory of looking after the spiritual well-
D being of the deceased soul by the near relatives has no
application for the purpose of judging the validity or
otherwise of a Will; more so, after coming into force of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as in terms thereof the
concept of succession to the estate of a deceased on the
E said consideration has lost its relevance. [Para 139]
[707-E]
13.2 The doctrine of 'larger circle of the caveators as
being members of the Birla family' and to protect the
spiritual interest does not convert a non-existent interest
F into a caveatable interest. Such a question had not been
raised even in the affidavits of the appellants. [Para 140]
[707-F-G]
14. The affidavit of KKB also reiterates the contents
of the plaint. No contention, however, has been raised that
G they have a caveatable interest keeping in view the
spiritual life of MPB and the testatrix as a member of the
family or otherwise. Similar affidavits have been filed by
others. The sisters are also supporting the Birla family.
The claim of acquiring cavetable interest on the said basis, f
H thus, is wholly unacceptable. [Para 141] [709-H; 710-A-B]
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 651
AND OTHERS

~ 15.1 A right to claim pre-emption is not a right in the A
estate. It creates an interest in the property. It does not
create an interest in succession. If such a right has been
created by an agreement, the same can be enforced only
in the event any contingency in that behalf takes place. A
Will ·is not a transfer for enforcement of a right of pre- B
emption under a contract. It must be enforced by a suit.
[Para 142] [710-C-D]
15.2 KKB, BKB and GPB claimed caveatable interest
as co-owners of 1/51h share in Kumaon Orchards, two
other co-owners being PB and SKB. SKB does not claim c
any caveatable interest in the estate of PDB. Even a
person claiming an interest in the property of the testator
by reason of an agreement for sale would not have a
caveatable interest on the premise that such an
agreement would be binding both upon the executor as D
also upon the heirs of the deceased (in the event, probate
is not granted). The same principle would apply herein.
Right of pre-emption, if any, is not affected by grant of·
probate. A right of pre-emption would arise only when a
voluntary transfer is made for consideration in favour of E
a stranger and not prior thereto. [Para 143] [711-D-F]
15.3 Right of a co-owner is not affected by
testamentary disposition. Indisputably, the object of
conferring the right on a co-sharer or owner of an adjacent
immovable property is to exclude strangers from F
acquiring interest in an immovable property as a co-sharer
• or to keep objectionable strangers away from the
neighbourhood. The same by itself does not constitute a
caveatable interest. [Para 145] [711-G-H; 712-A]
G
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC
249, Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991) 2 SCC 128 and Sri
Audh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria & Ors. AIR 1954 SC
t 417 - referred to.
16.1 Will takes effect after the death of testator. Rights H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A and obligations of an executor of a Will arise only then.
No right is created in the executor during the life time of
the testator. Appointment of a testator and appointment
of a trustee stand completely on different footings.
[Para 150] [713-B]
B 16.2 A person named as an executor under a Will
cannot claim any right to act as an executor until the death
of the testator. He has to survive him. He has to accept
the office as an executor expressly or by conduct. The
term "ceasing to be" thus necessarily means assumption
C of office of executor and thereafter ceasing to hold such
office, by renouncement or removal or death, etc.
[Para 151] [713-C-D]
16.3 An executor must first become an executor. As
MPB predeceased PDB, he never became an executor. If
0
he did not become an executor, the question of filling up
of any vacancy would not arise. For the aforementioned
purpose, it may be assumed that the 1982 Will was valid.
As MPB could never become an executor, BKB's
appointment does not confer on him a caveatable interest.
E An appointment of an executor ordinarily is the function
of a court in terms of Section 301 of the 1925 Act. This
Court, need not go into the question as to whether his
appointment was legal or not, but, only notice that even
in the deed of appointment, there is nothing to show that
F the necessary ingredients for appointment of B.K. Birla
by the surviving executors had been made out as it was
not stated that the original executor had seized to hold
•
office. [Para 160, 161] [718-A-C]
G 16.4 The office of executor under the 1982 Will does
not carry any remuneration therewith. The power to
appoint an executor was dependent upon any executor
ceasing to be one. The condition precedent has not been
fulfilled. In the instant case, MPB had never become the
executor, hence, ttie question of his "ceasing to be an
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 653
AND OTHERS

executor" does not arise. [Para 162] [718-D-E] A
16.5 Appellants are not the legatees of the said Will.
They are not the beneficiaries thereunder. They being
merely executors, would not clothe them with a right to
lodge a caveat as by reason thereof they did not derive
any caveatable interest in the estate of PDB. [Para 163] B
[718-F]
Jnanadndra Nath Mukherjee and another v. Jitendra
Nath Mukherjee and others AIR 1928 Cal. 275; Sri Raja
Kakadapudi Venkata Sudarshana Narasayyamma and others
v. Andhra Bank Ltd., Vijayawada and others, AIR 1960 AP 273;
c
Ramautar Singh v. Ramsundari Kur., AIR 1959 Pat 585; Leo
Sequiera v. Magdalene Sequiers Bai and others, AIR 1971
Mysore 143 and Smt. Usharani Roy v. Smt. Hemlata Roy
AIR 1946 Cal. 40 - relied on.
D
Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Company (1899) 1
LR.Ch.D. 775; Re Lighton ER (1 HAGG. ECC) 569 and RE
Henrietta Johnson ER (1 SW&TR-18) 609 - referred to.
Williams on Executors, 15th Edition page 34 - referred
to. E
17. GPB was held to have caveatable interest on the
premise that he was named as an executor. He, therefore,
has rightly been held to have a caveatable interest. An
application for grant of probate of 1982 Will is also
pending. Therein a contention has been raised by the first F
respondent that the said Will was not genuine. If
.,. respondent No.1 has a caveatable interest in respect of
1982 Will, GPB would not have any right in respect of 1999
Will. [Para 164, 165] [718-G-H; 719-A]
18.1 So far as the case of YB is concerned his G
. '
appointment as an executor has been upheld by the High
Court. It was, however, opined that by reason thereof, he
did not acquire any caveatable interest. RSL has filed an
't appeal against that part of the judgment whereby his
appointment as an executor of the Will of MPB of 1992 in H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A place of PDB has been upheld. For the reasons stated in
regard to the .legal position governing the filling up of
vacancy of one of the named executors by the others,
the appointment of YB as an executor of the Will of MPB
in place of PDB cannot be sustained. It is not a case of YB
B that PDB had assumed office or the purported Will of MPB
had been given effect to. Genuineness of the said Will is
in question. KKB has already filed an application for grant
of probate in respect of the said Will. As there is nothing
to show that any vacancy has been created by reason of
c death of PDB, YB could not have been appointed in her
place at this stage. The vacancy has to be filled up in terms
of the instrument or in accordance with law. It cannot be
directed to be filled in equity by a Court of Law. [Para 166,
167] [719-B-F]
D 18.2 Only because YB has a right to maintain a suit
for purported enforcement of the Mutual Wills, the same
by itself cannot confer upon him a caveatable interest.
There exists a distinction between an executor named by
the testator in the Will and an executor who is appointed
E on a purported vacancy arising out of death of another
executor. In the latter case such an appointment may not
be valid. In a case of this nature YB could not be held to
have caveatable interest only by reason of such an
appointment as here is nothing on record to show that
F PDB had enjoyed the benefit under the said Will and not
as an heir of MPB. If the Will had not been given effect to
for such a long time, there is no reason as to why the terms
thereof should be directed to be acted upon at this
juncture and/or in terms thereof dispute between the
G parties in this behalf cannot be adjudicated upon at an
interlocutory stage. (Para 168, 169) [719-G-H; 720-A-B]
18.3 The affidavit of assets annexed by the Birlas to
their petition for grant of probate in respect of 1982 Will of
MPD and the affidavit of assets annexed by them to the -f
H petition for grant of probate of 1982 Will of PDB show that
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 655
AND OTHERS

the assets held by the former mentioned in the petition A
for probate of his Will of 1982 are also shown as assets of
PDB. [Para 172] [721-H; 722-A-B]
Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased} and after her
_egal Representative Mr. Marlean Wilkinson v. lsolyne
Sarojbashini Bose and others AIR 1962 SC 1471 - referred 8
_,, to;
...
1
19. A suit contemplated under Section 92 of the Code
of Civil Procedure cannot be equated with a probate. In a
suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, t~e c
title of the donor may be disputed. Such a question as of
necessity must be gone into by the court which, however,
is a forbidden domain for the Probate Court. [Para 173]
[722-8-C]
Sirajul Haq Khan & Others v. The Sunni Central Board D
of Waqf, UP and Others 1959 SCR 1287 - referred to.
20. Provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Trust Act
have limited application. Applicability thereof would arise
when a trustee disclaims, dies or is absent from India for
a period of more than six months or leaves India for the E
purpose of residing abroad or is declared an insolvent
etc. Prima facie BKB or YB were not appointed as trustee.
They were only appointed as executors. An executor
becomes a trustee only upon completion of
administration of trust. This proposition does not appear F
to be in dispute. Administration of trust being incomplete,
MPB did not become an executor. He, therefore, was not
a trustee. Provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Trusts
Act will, therefore, have no application. In the Will of PDB
executed in the year 1982 he was merely named as an G
executor. It is also difficult, at this stage, to construe the
Will of 1982 of PDB as an instrument of trust. The question
in regard to the administration of the estate of PDB only
arose after her death which took place in 2004~ MPB died
in 1990. The said provisions, therefore, have no H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A application. [Para 174, 175] [722-E-H; 723-A]
21. Why an owner of the property executes a Will in
favour of another is a matter of his/her choice. One may
by a Will deprive his close family members including his
sons and daughters. She had a right to do so. The court
B is concerned with the genuineness of the Will. If it is found
to be valid, no further question as to why did she do so
would be completely out of its domain, A Will may be
executed even for the benefit of others including animals.
Various documents have been placed on behalf of the
c first respondent to show that MPB was not happy in
regard to management of Birlas' Group of Companies and
by the division thereof which took place after the demise
of G.D. Birla in 1983. Indisputably, however, they were
separate. They were in the control and management of
D their respective companies. The group of companies
managed by MPB and PDB were known as M.P. Birla
Group of Companies. There are other companies, named
separately, in the name of individual group of Birlas.
According to the first respondent he had closely been
E involved in the M.P. Birla Group of Companies and had
been inducted as Director/Co-Chairman/Chairman of
various M.P. Birla Group of Companies during the lifetime
of PDB. Other persons belonging to Birla family were not
so involved. In fact according to the appellants
F themselves, the first respondent was a man of trust so far
PDB is concerned. Thus, the submission that RSL is an
outsider does not appeal to this Court to determine the
issues in favour of Birlas. [Para 176, 177, 178 and 179]
[723-8-G; 724-F]
G 22. It has already held that GPB has caveatable
interests as executor of MPB in respect of his Will of 1982.
Therefore, there is no reason why RSL would not have a
caveatable interest being a beneficiary under the 1999 Will
in the proceedings for grant of probate of the Will of MPB +
,.
H dated 13th July, 1982. If the grounds taken in the appeal
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 657
AND OTHERS

are to be upheld, the same ex facie would destroy the case A
of the appellants in the other cases. [Para 181] [724-H;
725-A-B]
23.1 Filing of Civil Suit No.221 of 2004 does not bar
considering the caveatable interest and as this Court is
not called upon to decide the maintainability of the said B
suit at this stage, no observation is made thereupon.
[Para 182] [725-C]
23.2 The High Court was right in opining that a
caveatable interest may arise only after suit for
enforcement of mutual Will is decreed and not prior C
thereto. [Para 183] [725-D]
24. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case, the probate proceedings should be taken up
for hearing by the High Court as expeditiously as possible. 0
The High Court is requested to consider this aspect of
the matter. Probate proceedings may also be taken up for
hearing one after the other. Probate proceeding of RSL in
respect of Will of PDB executed in the year 1999 should
be taken up first. The hearing of the probate proceeding E
of Will of MPB of 1982 may be taken up immediately
thereafter. Judgments may be delivered, if possible, at the
same time. The suit filed by the executors of the two 1982
Wills being Civil Suit No. 221 of 2004 may be taken up for
hearing only after the disposal of the probate
proceedings, if necessary. [Para 185, 186, 187] [725-G-H; F
726-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2277 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2006 of the G
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in G.A. No. 1429 of2005 in
A.P.O.T. No. 284 of 2005 in A.P.O. No. 242 of 2005.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2278, 2274, 2276, 2279 and 2275 of2008. H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A Ram Jethmalani, Shyam Sarkar, Mahesh Jethmalani, K.K.
Venugopal, Dushyant Dave, Arun Jaitley, Bhaskar P.Gupta,
Harish N. Salve, A.K. Mitra, Indira Jaisingh, P.H. Parekh, Pratap
Chatterjee, Anindya Kumar Mitra, Abnhrajit Mitra, Nand Gopal
Khaitan, Ajay Bhargava, Atul Shankar Mathur, Vanita Bhargava,
B Akhil Sibal, D.N. Sharma, Nupor Mukherjee (for M/S. Khaitan &
Co.), B.A. Ranganadhan, Amit Sibal, Abhradt Mitra, D. Manda!,
Sanjiv Trivedi, Sameer Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Ankur Chawla,
Minakshi Grover, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Mary Mitgy, Sumit Goel,
Arjun Garg, Pallavi Srivastava, Pawan, Rukmini Bobde,
c Meenakshi Chatterjee (for M/s P.H. Parekh & Co.), Ashish Jha,
Pratap Chatterjee, lndraneel Ghosh, Sangeeta Manda!, D.
Manda!, Sanjiv Trivedi, Jayasree Singh and Swati Sinha (for M/
s Fox Manda! & Co.) for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
INTRODUCTION
2. What is a caveatable interest within the meaning of the
E Indian Succession Act, 1925 (1925 Act) vis-a-vis the Rules
framed by the Calcutta High Court in the year 1940 is the
question involved herein.
BACKGROUND FACTS
3. Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) and her husband
F Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) were admittedly very wealthy
persons. They owned an industrial empire known as the MP
Birla Group of Industries. They were issueless and known for
their charitable disposition. They used to run several charitable
institutions.
G
4. Both MPB and PDB are said to have executed mutual
wills on identical terms on or about 1oth May, 1981 bequeathing
his/her respective estate(s) barring certain specific legacies to +
the other and on the death of the survivor to the 'charities' to be
H nominated by the executors. However, the said wills were
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 659
/AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

revoked and another set of mutual wills were executed on 13th A
July, 1982 in terms whereof, four executors were appointed in
each set of Will (1982 Will).
The executors nominated in MPB's Will were :-
1. Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) B
2. Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB)
3. Kashinath Tapuria and
4. Pradip Kumar Khaitan ;
c
Whereas the executors nominated in PDB's will were :-
1. Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB)
2. Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB)
3. Kashinath Tapuria . D
4. Pradip Kumar Khaitan
5. MPB died on 30th July, 1990.
6. On or about 18th April, 1999, PDB executed her last E
Will (1999 Will) bequeathing her entire estate to the first
respondent i.e. Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL). He was also
appointed as the sole executor. She executed a codicil on 15th
April, 2003.
7. PDB died on 3rd July, 2004. F
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
8. KKB, BKB, and Yashovardhan Birla (YB), the appellants
herein, having come to learn of the execution of the said Will
filed caveats on 14th July, 2004 to oppose the grant of probate G
of the 1999 Will. Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB) and Smt. Laxmi
Devi Newar also entered caveats on 19th July, 2004.
9. In his application for grant of probate, GPB accepted
that Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta were
the heirs and legal representatives of PDB. In the said H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A application, Pradip Kumar Khaitan and Kashinath Tapuria were
also parties.
10. On or about 19th July, 2004 the first respondent, RSL
filed an application for grant of probate of 1999 Will (P.L.A. No.
204 of 2004) before the High Court of Calcutta showing Smt.
B Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta, the two sisters
of MPB, as the only heirs and legal representatives of the
testatrix.

11. Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta also entered a caveat on
22nd July, 2004.
c
12. First respondent took out an application which was
marked as GA No.2721 of 2004 seeking discharge of caveats
entered by or on behalf of KKB, BKB, GPB and YB before the
High Court of Calcutta. Appellants as also Smt. Laxmi Devi
D Newar filed their respective affidavits in support of the respective
caveats filed on 30th July, 2004. An affidavit in support of her
caveat was also filed by Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta.
13. The executors of the 1982 Wills filed two applications
being P.L.A. No. 241 of 2004 for grant of probate of the Will of
E MPB dated 13th July, 1982 and P.L.A. No. 242 of2004 forgrant
of probate of the Will of PDB dated 13th July, 1982 before the
Calcutta High Court on 17th August, 2004 purported to have
been executed by MPB and PDB, indisputably on the premise
that even if the probate of the 1999 Will executed by PDB is
F granted in favour of the first respondent, he would be under an
obligation to abide by the directions contained in the purported
mutual Wills.
14. A suit was filed by the surviving executors of the two
1982 Wills before the Calcutta High Court which was numbered
G as C.S. No.221 of 2004 claiming inter alia for a declaration that
the first respondent as the alleged executor and sole beneficiary
of the 1999 Will of PDB is not entitled to deal with the assets of
PDB in any manner contrary to and inconsistent with the terms +
of the 1982 Will. The cause of action for the said suit was
H founded on the doctrine of mutual Wills.
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 661
AND OTHERS [S.S. SINHA, J.]
-1
15. Two deeds of appointments dated 23rd August, 2004 A
and 24th August, 2004 were also executed appointing YB and
BKB as surviving executors of the Wills of MPS and PDB (1982
Wills) in place of PDB and MPS respectively. Whereas
appointment of YB was accepted; that of BKB was not.

16. An application (G.A. No. 2721 of 2004) was filed by 8
the first respondent to discharge the caveators viz. KKB, BKB,
GPB and YB before the Calcutta High Court.

HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS
17. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the c
said application of discharge of the caveats filed by KKB, BKB
and YB. However, the caveat filed by GPB was retained. It may
be placed on record that the first respondent, RSL, also entered
into a caveat in the proceedings arising out of an application
for grant of probate of 1982 Wills. Application for discharge of D
caveat of RSL was also dismissed.
18. Appeals were filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent
of the Calcutta High Court before the Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court thereagainst. Cross-objections were filed
by RSL in the said appeal against retaining the caveat filed by E
KKB, BKB and YB as also the appointment of YB as the executor
of MPS. The appeals as also the cross-objections have been
dismissed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by
reason of the judgment impugned herein.
F
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US.
19. We may, at the outset, notice the details of the SLPs
filed by the parties herein :-
1. SLP (Civil) No.2089 of 2007 has been filed by
G
Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB) against the order of
discharge of his caveat in P.L.A. No.204 of 2004.
:r 2. SLP (Civil) No. 2090 of 2007 has been filed by Basant
Kumar Birla (BKB) against the order of discharge of
his caveat in P.L.A. No.204 of 2004. H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A 3. SLP (Civil) No. 2091 of 2007 has been filed by
Yashovardhan Birla (YB) against the order of
discharge of his caveat in P.L.A. No. 204 of 2004.
4. SLP (Civil) No. 10571 of 2007 has been filed by
Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL) against the refusal of
B order of discharge of caveat filed by Ganga Prasad
Birla (GPB) in P.L.A. No. 204 of 2004.
5. SLP (Civil) No. 19040 of 2007 has been filed by
Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB) against non-discharge
c of caveat of Rajendra Singh Lodha in the goods of
MPB.
6. SLP (Civil) No. 10176 of 2007 has been filed by
Rajendra Singh Lodha (RSL) challenging
appointment of Yashovardhan Birla (YB) as an
D executor of the Will of Madhav Prasad Birla of 1982
in place of Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB).
FAMILY OF BIRLAS
20. Before embarking on the questions raised in these
E appeals we may notice the genealogy of the family of the
testatrix-
Raja Baldeodas Birla
(D)

F Jugalkishor Rameshwardas Ghanshyamdas
D (D) (D)

Madhav Lakshmi Basant
Prasad ID) Niwas (0) Kumar
,...'.:::::J::'.:::::'....,~-~
Aditya Chandra
Sudarshan
Vikram (D) Kant
G
Sidharth Kumar
Kumar Mangalarn

Aryaman -f
Vikram

H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 663
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

21. Krishna Kumar (KKB) and Basant Kumar (BKB) are A.
the cousins of Madhav Prasad (MPB); whereas Yashovardhan
,
(YB) is the grand son of sister of MPB.

22. It is stated that PDB was also related to KKB through
his wife.
B
. 23. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is
also not in dispute that MPB left behind two sisters Smt. Laxmi
Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta, who are his as also
PDB's heirs and legal representatives.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS c
24. Provisions relating to grant of 'Probate' is contained
in Chapter IV of the 1925 Act.
25. Section 283 of the 1925 Act enumerates the powers
of the District Judge. Section 283(1 )(c) of the 1925 Act confers D
~ power upon the District Judge to issue citations calling upon all
persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the
deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant
of 'Probate' or 'Letters of Administration'. Sub-section (2) of
Section 283 postulates that the citation shall be fixed up in some E
conspicuous part of the court-house, and also the other spaces
as specified therein. Section 284 of 1925 Act provides for the
lodging of caveats against grant of Probate or Letter of
Administration with a copy of the Will annexed with a District
Judge or a District Delegate. F
26. The form in which caveat is entered has been
prescribed in Schedule V appended to the Act, is to the following
effect:-
"SCHEDULE G
[See section 284 (4) ]
FORM OF CAVEAT

~ Let nothing be done in the matter of the estate of A, B,,
late of deceased, who died on the day of __ at
without notice to C.D. of H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A 27. The Calcutta High Court framed rules laying down the
procedure for dealing with the applications filed before it in its
testamentary and intestate jurisdiction.

28. It is contained in Chapter XXXV thereof. Rule 4
provides for "Application for probate or letters of administration,
8 or a certificate". Rule 5(a) inserted in the year 1948 provides
that in all applications for grant of Probate or Letters of
Administration with the Will annexed, the names of the members
of the family or other relatives upon whom the estate would have
devolved in case of an intestacy together with their present place
C of residence shall be stated. Rule 24 provides for filing of caveat
on the same terms as contained in Section 284 of the 1925
Act. Rule 25 provides for "Affidavit in support of the caveat" in
the following terms :-

"25. Affidavit in support of caveat. - Where a caveat is
D
entered after an application has been made for a grant of
probate or letters of administration with or without the will
annexed, the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be filed
within eight days of the caveat being lodged,
notwithstanding the long vacation. Such affidavit shall state
E the right and interest of caveator, and the grounds of the
objections to the application." (emphasis added).

29. Rule 26 provides for "Notice to caveator to file affidavit".
It reads as under:-

F "26. Notice to caveator to file affidavit. - Where an
application for grant of probate or letters of administration
with or without the will annexed is presented after a caveat
has been filed,, the Registrar shall forthwith issue notice
to the caveator, calling upon him to file his affidavit or
G affidavits in support of his caveat within eight days from
the service of such notice."
30. Rule 27 provides for the "Consequence of not filing
the affidavit". Rule 28 provides that upon the affidavit being filed
H in support of the caveat (Notice whereof shall immediately be
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 665
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.)

..... given by the caveator to the petitioner), the proceedings shall, A
by order of the Judge upon application by summons be
numbered as a suit in which the petitioner for probate or letters
of administration shall be the plaintiff and the caveator shall be
the defendant, the petition for probate or letters of administration
being registered and deemed as a plaint filed against the B
caveator, and the affidavit filed by the caveator being treated
as his written statement in the suit.

31. Rule 29 provides for service of "Notice to prove will in
solemn form" in the following terms :-
c
"29. Notice to prove will in solemn form, - The party
opposing a will may, with his affidavit, give notice to the
party setting up the will that he merely insists upon the will
being proved in solemn form of law, and only intends to
cross-examine the witnesses produced in support of the
D
will, and he shall thereupon be at liberty to do so, and shall

.. not, in any event, be liable to pay the costs of the other
side, unless the Court shall be of opinion that there was no
reasonable ground for opposing the.will."
32. Rule 30 provides for "Trial of preliminary issue" as E
under:-

"30. Trial of preliminary issue. - The Court may, on the
application of the petitioner by summons to the caveator
before making the order mentioned in rule 28, direct the
trial of an issue as to the caveator's interest. Whereupon F
the trial of such issue, if it appears that the caveator has
no interest, the Court shall order the caveat to be
discharged, and may order the issue of probate or letters
of administration, as the case may be."
G
33. We may also take note of Section 73 of the Indian
Trusts Act, 1882, which reads as under:-
"Section 73 -Appointment of new trustees on death, etc.
')- Whenever any person appointed a trustee disclaims, of
any trustee, either original or substituted, dies, or is for a H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A continuous period of six months absent from India, or ~
leaves India for the purpose of residing abroad, or is
declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from
the trust, or refuses or becomes, in the opinion of a principal
civil court of original jurisdiction, unfit or personally
8 incapable to act in the trust, or accepts an inconsistent
trust, a new trustee may be appointed in his place by-
•
(a) the person nominated for that purpose by the
instrument of trust (ifany), or

c (b) if there be no such person, or no such person
able and willing to act, the author of the trust if he be
alive and competent to contract, or the surviving or
continuing trustees or trustee for the time being, or
legal representative of the last surviving and
continuing trustee, or (with the consent of the court)
D
the retiring trustees, if they all retire simultaneously,
or (with the like consent) the last retiring trustee.
Every such appointment shall be by writing under the hand
.
of the person making it.
E
On an appointment of a new trustee the number of trustees
may be increased.

The Official Trustee may, with his consent and by the order
of the court, be appointed under this section, in any case
F in which only one trustee is to be appointed and such
trustee is to be the sole trustee.
The provisions of this section relative to a trustee who is
dead include the case of a person nominated trustee in a
will but dying before the testator, and those relative to a
G continuing trustee include a refusing or retiring trustee if
willing to act in the execution of the power."
SUBMISSION :
34. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned senior counsel 'f-

H appearing on behalf of the Appellant, KKB would submit
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 667
AND OTHERS [S.S. SINHA, J]

(i) A caveat being maintainable at the instance of A
common ancestors and near relatives of the testator,
the impugned judgment discharging the caveat is
· wholly unsustainable.

(ii) Appellant being an executor of the 1982 Will executed
by the husband of PDB namely MPS, has a B
, ~ caveatable interest.

(iii) Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court although recognized such a right,
but, committed a serious error in opining that the c
same does not constitute a caveatable interest
without considering the legal position, namely, that
the caveaters had obligations to see that the will of
MPS be made effective in letter and spirit so that all
the bequeathed properties are applied towards
D
charitable disposition, particularly when a suit for the
said purpose has been filed.
(iv) The High Court committed a manifest error in ignoring
the effect of the suit despite holding that if the suit
succeeds, a caveatable interest would accrue to E
them.
(v) Appellants having a two fold duty to see that RSL, (1)
in the event the probate is granted, applies the estate
of the deceased subject to charitable disposition;
and (2) that he will not take it as his absolute F
properties; the same thus gave rise to a right and
interest under and through which a caveat could be
maintained by them.
(vi) The caveators, being co-sharers of the testatrix in
G
respect of Kumaon Orchards wherefor an agreement
had been entered into on 15th July, 1997 conferring
a right of pre-emption against any co-sharer, must
be held to have sufficient interest in the estate.
-r
(vii) As the properties were to be applied for charitable H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A disposition, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
would be attracted in terms whereof interest must be
shown to be exiting in relation to the trust and not the
trust property. Our attention in this behalf has been
drawn to the fact that the words "direct interest"
B occurring therein were substituted by the word
"interest" only.

(viii) Rule 30 of the Calcutta High Court Rules is ultra
vires Section 295 of the 1925 Act in so far as it lays
down a purported qualification for entering into a
C caveat, although no such requirement is provided
thereunder.
(ix) As the judicial precedent prior to 1925 would apply
even in the post-1925 era, the High Court should
have proceeded on the basis that the qualifications
D
which are necessary for the purpose of having a
caveatable interest would be the same even for
revocation.
(x) The resultant trust involved in execution of mutual
E Wills must be construed having regard to the
surrounding circumstances, as in all such cases the
person making the latter Will was a party to the earlier
one. As the testatrix in this case purportedly has gone
back on her agreement and the case of the appellant
F being that she never changed her mind as she did
not execute the 1999 Will, the right of the appellants
had a right to enter a caveat in the probate
proceedings.
(xi) In the proceeding for grant of the Probate of the 1982
G Will of MPB, RSL did not have any caveatable interest
as he has no interest in his property.
35. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing
for BKB, supplementing the argument of Mr. Jethmalani
·r-
submitted:
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 669
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]
-f (i) The High Court has committed a serious error in A
holding that the appointment of BKB in place of MPB
in his Will could not have been filled up as he expired
during the life time of PDB.

(ii) In view of the contention of the appellants that the
1999 Will is a bogus one, the vacancy could be filled B
...
up in equity.

(ii) BKB having a special interest in the charitable
disposition of the properties of PDB has, a
caveatable interest in terms of Section 232 of the c
1925 Act.

(iii) As by reason of the agreement dated 15th July, 1997,
the parties agreed that a stranger to the family should
not enjoy any property, there being a clog on the right
to sell the same, the same must be held to be D
applicable also in a case of gift or will.
(iv) Appellants being the cousins and, thus, being
interested in the spiritual wellbeing of the trustee,
were also entitled to enter their respective caveats.
E
(v) Since the extent of right of a person for lodging a
caveat had not been laid down under a statute, the
decisions rendered from time immemorial holding
that only a bare right (which would also mean a bare
contention, i.e., which would give rise to an arguable F
point at the hearing constitutes a caveatable interest)
should be held to be still a good law.

(vi) Section 283(1 )(c) of the 1925 Act should not be
treated to be the sole repository for the purpose of
determining the right of a caveator. The interpretation G
of the word "caveat", if given its natural meaning, the
same would mean a right to oppose.
-'t 36. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of YB urged :-
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A (i) YB being a grandson of the brother of MPB and his
appointment as the executor in terms of the deed of
appointment dated 24th August, 2004 having been
accepted, the High Court must be held to have
committed a manifest error in holding that he had not
B acquired a caveatable interest.
(ii) YB being a party to the suit could oppose execution
of the Will having regard to the fact that he has shown
existence of an interest in all the three sets of
proceedings, viz, grant of Probate of 1982 Wills,
c grant of Probate of 1999 Will and the suit filed by the
members of the Birla family to enforce the agreement
of MPB and PDB in terms of the 1982 Wills executed
by them.
(iii) Determination of validity of the Wills being
D
interdependent, inasmuch as, in the event probates
are granted in respect of the 1982 Wills, then the
1999 Will could not be implemented; and even in the
event, probate in respect of 1999 Will is granted, the
suit can still be decreed so as to give effect to the
E mutual wills.
(iv) YB had a right to maintain the suit on the premise
that the properties should be given to charity, thus,
had a right to challenge the 1999 Will at the threshold.
F (v) The High Court committed a manifest error in opining
that caveatable interest would depend upon the
decree to be passed in the suit instead of a right to
maintain the suit.
(vi) In any view of the matter, when there exists two Wills,
G
a person who can challenge a rival will, will have a
caveatable interest in respect thereof.
37. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing -t·
on behalf of RSL, on the other hand, would contend :
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 671
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

-+ (a) A caveatable interest having regard to phraseology A
used in Section 284 of the 1925 Act would mean a
real interest which the caveator could have derived
in the estate of the deceased in the event the grant
of probate is refused.

(b) In view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, B
~ 1956 that there being no possibility of any person
other than heirs to derive a remote interest in the
estate of the deceased, the decisions of various High
Courts to the effect that the reversioner and/or distant
relatives would have a caveatable interest are no c
longer good law.

(c) A caveatable interest being different from the right of
a person to oppose grant of probate on the basis of
title, the impugned judgments should not be interfered
D
with.
..., (d) Consideration in regard to locus standi to maintain
a Public Interest Litigation or a suit under Section 92
of tt..f· Code of Civil Procedure is irrelevant for
dett .' ''ination of issues arising in a probate E
proceeding. The said contention having not been
raised in the affidavit filed by any of the appellants
herein before the High Court, should not be permitted
to be raised before this Court for the first time. In any
event by taking recourse to the said provision, the F
nature and character of a probate proceeding cannot
be changed.
(e) The claim of the appellants to have a caveatable
interest in their capacity as agnates is wholly
unsustainable as the sisters of MPB are alive. They G
do not have a caveatable interest even as executors
of the Will of MPB of 1982 or otherwise.
(f) 1982 Will of MPB is not affected by the 1999 Will,
particularly, when appellants are not the legatees
H
672 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A thereunder and as such the question of surviving
executor deriving any interest in his place would not
arise.
(g) An executor under a Will would not remain an
executor upon his ceasing to hold the said office or
B by a renouncement or his removal or death, but, such
contingencies having not taken place, no purported
vacancy had arisen, and thus, the question of filling
up the same does not arise.

c (h) As mutual Wills are not rival Wills, persons claiming
as executors of the Will of MPB did not derive any
caveatable interest, as they remained unaffected by
subsequent Wills.
(i) In regard to the SLP filed by R.K. Lodha, for refusing
D him to be impleaded as a party on the plea that he
had no caveatable interest, it was submitted that
having regard to the contention that MPB did not
execute any Will, he should have been impleaded as
a party as representative of PDB.
E 0) Reference to Section 263 of the 1925 Act and the
decisions rendered thereupon are wholly irrelevant
as considerations for applications thereof have
nothing to do with the application under Sections
283 and 284 thereof.
F
38. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior counsel
appearing in some of the matters for RSL urged: ._
(i) The 1925Act having retained the phraseologies used
in the earlier as well as the successor Acts, the same
G meaning to the words as was earlier operating,
should be assigned.
(ii) Rules of the Calcutta High Court, having been framed
in terms of Section 122 of the Code of Civil .....
Procedure, 1908, are valid in law.
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 673
AND OTHERS (S.B. SINHA, J.]

(iii) Theory of mutual Wills do not stand in the way of A
grant of probate of a later Will.

COMPARATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE 1881 ACT AND
THE 1925 ACT

39. Grant of probate or Letters of Administration with a 8
~
copy of the Will annexed, used to be governed by the Probate
and Administration Act, 1881 (for short "the 1881 Act") Rules
were framed by the Calcutta High Court in terms of the provisions
thereof.

40. We may briefly notice that Section 69 of the 1881 Act c
corresponds to Section 283 of the 1925 Act. Section 70 of the
1881 Act corresponds to Sub-sections (1 ), (2) and (3) of Section
284 of the 1925 Act, whereas Section 71 of the 1881 Act
corresponds to sub-section (4) of Section 284 of 1925 Act.
D
41. The statement required to be made as envisaged in
Schedule V of the 1925 Act was a part of Section 71 of the
1881 Act. Section 72 of the 1881 Act corresponds to Section
285 and Sections 73 and 83 of the 1881 Act correspond to
Sections 286 and 295 of the 1925 Act.
E
42. The validity of the Rules framed by the Calcutta High
Court will have to be considered having regard to the provisions
of the 1881 Act.
We shall advert to the said question a little later.
F
THE WILLS
43. The Relevant terms of Will of MPB executed on 13th
July, 1982 as also those of the Will executed by PDB may be
noticed at this juncture.
G
44. MPB by his Will appointed four executors including
his wife. By reason thereof, he bequeathed all his properties to
his wife and only in the event of his wife predeceasing him, the
't executors were to make over and/ or donate and/or settle for
public charitable purposes the estate as they might think fit and
H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.

A proper.
Clause 3 of the 1982 Will reads as under:

"3. Subject to the provisions of Clause 2 above, the
Executors will have power to donate the estate to one or
B more public charitable trusts, societies or institutions and/
or establish one or more public charitable trusts, societies
or institutions for public charitable objects as they may
think fit."

45. The Will purported to have been ex_ecuted by PDB was
C on the same terms except that one outsider executor named
therein was different, which we have noticed hereinbefore. She
also bequeathed her properties in favour of MPB. She, however,
sought to bequeath all ornaments and jewelleries, gold coins
and articles to the three daughters of K.K. Birla absolutely in
D equal proportion. Clause 4 of the said Will is on similar basis to
Clause.3 of the Will of MPB.
46. It is of some significance that Shri P.L. Agarwal and
Shri S.J. Khaitan are attesting witnesses to the said Wills.
E 47. PDB executed the disputed Will on 18th April, 1999, in
terms whereof any Will made prior thereto stood cancelled. In
the said Will, she categorically stated that she had been running
several business concerns and also managing properties and
institutions, bequeathed to her, in the true and sincere spirit of a
F trustee for the larger benefit of the country and of the interest of
shareholders and workers.
48. She nominated the first respondent as her legatee.
Except the fact that Shri P.L. Agarwal of Khaitan and Company
is also an attesting witness, it is not necessary for us to notice
G the other stipulations ma.de therein.
49. On or about 15th April, 2003, a Codicil was executed
with a view to avoid any confusion or ambiguity in the 1999 Will.
By reason thereof, certain declarations were made and some
H directions were also issued to the first respondent.
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 675
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.)

THE SUIT (CS NO. 221 OF 2004) A
50. The suit was instituted by the purported three executors
of both the Wills. Both the said Wills were said to have been
made over to Kashinath Tapuria; one of the appointed executors
thereunder. He is said to have produced the same only after the ·
death of PDB. It is stated that upon the death of MPS on 30th B
~
July, 1990, PDB as a beneficiary of her husband's Will came to
possess, own and control his estate and, thus, had taken and
enjoyed the benefit under the said Will until her death on 3rd
July, 2004.
c
51. The averments in the plaint of the said suit proceeded
on the basis that the Will dated 18th April, 1999 and Codicil
dated 15th April, 2003 were not genuine. It was contended that
PDB had only a life interest in the estate and, thus, she was
incompetent to dispose of her own or the combined estate by
D
alienation or dissipation in a manner inconsistent with the terms
and tenor of the mutual Wills. The validity of the said Will was
also questioned.
Paragraph 15 of the plaint reads as under:
"15. Even on the footing that the said purported will dated E
18th April 1999 is genuine and valid and had to the effect
of revoking the earlier will of Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla
dated 13th July, 1982, the plaintiffs would contend that on
her death, the defendant as alleged executor of the said
purported will must hold the estate of Smt. Priyamvada F
Devi Birla, now representing the combined estates of
Madhav Prasad Birla and Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla, in
trust for the agreed ultimate beneficiaries of the mutual
wills viz. charities which might be set up or nominated by
the executors of the will dated 13th July 1982 of Smt. G
Priyamvada Devi Birla."
52. According to the plaintiffs, they, as executors of the
said Wills, became entitled to take possession of the entire
estate, make over, donate or settle the same for public charitable
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 5 S.C.R

A purposes or to establish any public charitable trust at their
absolute discretion. A plea of constructive trust on the basis of
the said Wills was also raised.
53. The defendant's right of sole beneficiary of the said
Will dated 13th April, 1999 was questioned, stating:
B
"17. The defendant as alleged executor and sole
beneficiary of the said purported will dated 13th April, 1999
•
is not entitled to put any impediment to or interfere with the
implementation of the said trust."
c 54. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit inter alia are:
"a) Declaration that the defendant as the alleged executor
and sole beneficiary of the purported will dated 13th April
1999 and/ or purported Codicil dated 15th April 2003
allegedly made by Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla is not
D
entitled to deal with the estate of Smt. Priyamvada Devi
Birla in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the
Will dated 13th July, 1932 executed by Smt. Priyamvada
Devi Birla, save to the extent of making over the said
estate to the Plaintiff for the purpose of implementing the
E provisions of the said Will dated 13th July, 1932 made by
Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla."
55. The plaint was drawn by Khaitan and Company. One
of its parties is also a defendant in the probate proceedings.
F Pradip Kumar Khaitan is a party in the suit. He is an executor.
Witnesses to the said Will are Khaitans. They are also working
as Advocates in the proceedings instituted.by or against Birlas.
ANALYSIS OF THE 1925 ACT

G
56. The 1925 Act is a self contained Code. An application
for grant of probate is to be filed in terms of Sections 275 and
276 thereof. Particulars stated in the said provisions are to be
furnished by the applicant. The petition for grant of probate is to
be signed and verified. Citations in terms of Section 233 (1 )(c) y
are to be issued calling upon all such persons who claim to
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 677
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]
·~
have any interest in the estate of the deceased. Citations are A
issued in order to enable such persons to see the proceedings
before the grant of probate and if necessary to oppose the same.
57. Such persons to whom citations have been issued
whether general or special, may file a caveat. All proceedings
are required to be taken only upon service of notice to the B
.. caveator(s). Section 286 uses the word "contention" to mean
appearance of any one in person, or by his recognized agent,
or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf, to oppose
the proceeding. In the contentious cases the procedures which
are required to be adopted are specified in Section 295. c
58. Only because neither in Section 284 nor Section 295
a caveator is required to show any interest in the estate of the
deceased, whether the same would mean that anybody and
everybody who intends to oppose the grant of probate would
D
be entitled to lodge caveat, is the question.
59. The 1925 Act in this case has nothing to do with the
"'"" law of inheritance or succession which is otherwise governed
by statutory laws or the custom, as the case may be.
It makes detailed provisions as to how and in what manner E
an application for grant of probate is to be filed, considered
and granted or refused. Rights and obligations of the parties as
also the executors and administrators appointed by the court
are laid down therein. Removal of the existing executors and
administrators and appointment of subsequent executors are F
within the exclusive domain of the court. The jurisdiction of the
> Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the
genuineness of the Will.
A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone
G
into the proceedings. Construction of a Will relating to the right,
title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of
the Probate Court.
)
60. A person to whom a citation is to be issued or a
caveator, must have some interest in the estate of the testator. H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R

A Any person claiming any interest adverse to the testator or his
estate cannot maintain any application before the Probate Court.
His remedy would be elsewhere. The question with regard to
the degree of interest or the right which a caveator must show
to establish his or her caveatable interest before the Probate
B Court should be considered having regard to the
aforementioned legal propositions.
CAVEATABLE INTEREST
61. Appellants herein have raised a large number of
c contentions to show that they have a caveatable interest.
We may categorize them as under:
(i) Mutual Will;
(ii) Family interest;
D (iii) Spiritual well-being of the testatrix
(iv) Pre-emption : Future domain doctrine;
(v) Preferential right - being executors of 1982 Will;
(vi) Executor appointed in place of original Executor;
E (vii) Executor appointed in place of MPB in purported
conformity with the 1982 Will of PDB, viz., YB.
Before dealing with each of the aforementioned
contentions, let us consider what is meant by the term
"Caveatable interest".
F
62. It has not been defined under the Act. We may,
therefore, notice the dictionary meaning of both the terms
"caveat" and "interest".
Legal Thesaurus Regular Edition by Wlliam C. Burton
G defines "interest" as under:-
"Interest (Ownership), noun
Assets, belongings, claim, dominion, droit, holding lawful ~-
possession, part, participation, percentage of ownership,
H portion, possession, property, proprietorship, right, right
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 679
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

of ownership, rightful possession , seisin, share, stake, A
title
Associated Concepts : accounts bearing interest,
assignable interest, beneficial interest, common interest,
contingent interest, continuity of interest, controlling interest,
future interest, interest in hand, joint interest, legal interest, B
legal rate of interest, life interest, person interested in a
will, property interest, qualified interest, remainder interest,
remaining interest, transit of interest, undivided interest.

63. "Caveat" has been defined in Random House c
Webster's Dictionary of the Law as under :-

"caveat, n. 1, a warning or caution; admonition.

2. In certain legal contexts, a formal notice of interest in a
matter or property; for example, a notice to a court or
D
public officer to suspend a certain proceeding until the
notifier is given a hearing ; a caveat filed against the
probate of a will.
64. Whereas the counsel for Birlas want us to take a liberal
approach as contrasted to real interest, submission of Mr. Salve E
is that all caveators must have a real interest in the subject matter
of the property.

SOME PRECEDENTS
65. What would be a caveatable interest in the facts and F
circumstances of the present case is the principal issue involved
herein. With a view to find out an answer thereto, let us notice
some precedents operating in the field.
66. A large number of decisions principally of the Calcutta,
Bombay and Madras High Courts have been cited by the G
appellants to show as to what constitutes a 'caveatable interest'.

-t 67. We may, however, at the outset, notice a decision of
this Court in Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown
Lengera [(1990) 3 SCC 333] which is binding on us. Therein,
H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A the testatrix, viz., one Mary Aline Browne, was the wife of one
Herbet Evander Browne, the eldest son of John Browne. Mary
died on 28th March, 1972. She had executed a Will on 12th
March, 1962. An application for grant of a Letter of
Administration with a copy of the Will annexed was filed by
B Michel. Petitioner Elizabeth Antony and her husband Zoe Enid
Browne filed caveats on the plea that the said Will was a forged
document. The petitioner therein also claimed that her daughter
Browne had executed a Will on 23'.d June, 1975 and she had ,
executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner. She also
C claimed herself to be a trustee of John Browne Trust.
68. The Probate Court held that they had no caveatable
interest. Caveatable interest, therefore, was claimed as an
executor and legatee of the Will executed by Ms Zoe Enid
Borwne as also a deed of gift in respect of one item of the estate
D executed in their favour. Caveatable interest was also claimed
on the premise that the petitioner was appointed a trustee of
John Browne Trust. This Court noticed a large number of High
Court judgments. It was, however, opined that the petitioner
therein failed to establish a caveatable interest stating:
E " ... We have perused the entire order of the trial court in
the context. Admittedly neither the original nor a copy of
the will said to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne,
was filed. Now coming to the trust, it is in the evidence of
PW 1 that John Browne Trust has come to an end in March
F 1972 and the same was not in existence. The trial court
has considered both the documentary and oral evidence
in this regard and has rightly held that the petitioner has no
existing benefit from the trust. Likewise the registered gift
deed or a copy of it has not been filed. Before the learned
G Single Judge of the High Court also same contentions
were put forward. The learned Judge observed that from
the objections filed by the caveator she desires the court
in the probate proceedings to uphold her title on the
strength of a gift deed and the trust deed. It is observed:
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 681
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

"Equally, the petitioner has not placed before the court the A
will dated June 23, 1975 stated to have been executed by
Zoe Enid Browne to establish that under the will dated
March 12, 1962 stated to have been executed by Mary
Aline Browne some interest given to the petitioner under
the will dated June 23, 1975 of Zoe Enid Browne, is liable B
to be in any manner affected or otherwise displaced, by
the grant of letters of administration in respect of the will
dated March 12, 1962 stated to have been executed by
Mary Aline Browne."

Accordingly the learned Judge held that the petitioner has C
not established that she has a caveatable interest justifying
her opposition to the probate proceedings for grant of
letters of administration. In this state of affairs, we are
unable to agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner
has caveatable interest." D
69. This Court, thus, categorically opined that while
granting a probate, the court would not decide any dispute with
regard to title. A separate suit would be maintainable therefor. If
probate is granted, they have a remedy in terms of Section 263
of the 1925 Act also. E

70. In the recent judgment of Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v.
Hardaya/ Singh Dhillon and others [2007 (12) SCALE 282],
this court inter alia relying upon Chiranjila/ Shri/al Goenka v.
Jasjit Singh and Ors. [(1993) 2 sec 507] and upon referring to F
a catena of decisions of the High Court and this Court, held that
Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the
existence of the property itself.
In Basanti Devi v. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswa/
[(2007) 12 SCALE 542], it is stated : G
"21. The Probate Court, indisputably, exercises a limited
jurisdiction. It is not concerned with the question of title.
-+ But ifthe probate has been granted subject to compliance
of the provisions of the Act, an application for revocation
H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A would also lie."
71. Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass [ILR 17 Calcutta 48] is a
decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. In
that case, the District Judge admitted the objection. It was held
that rival titles set up by the caveator can be gone into. Setting
B aside the said judgment of the District Judge, the Division Bench
of the High Court held:
"... A person disputing the right of a deceased testator to
deal with certain property as his own cannot be properly
c regarded as having an interest in the estate of the
deceased. His action is rather that of one claiming to
have an adverse interest..."
72. Abhiram Dass (supra) was followed by a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prijoshah Bhikaji v. Pestonji
D Merwanji [12 Born LR 366] stating:
" ... the interest which entitles a person to put in a caveat
must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person,
that is, there should be no dispute whatever as to the title
of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who
E wishes to come in as caveator must show some interest
in that estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or
otherwise."
73. Madras High Court also took the same view in
F Rahamtul/ah Sahib v. Rama Rau & Anr. [ILR 17 Madras 373]
opining:
"this possibility should rest on existing facts and not on
mere conjecture".
G 74. It is also of some significance to note that Abhiram
Dass (supra) has been noticed by the Calcutta High Court in
Nikunj Kumar Lohia v. Narayan Prasad Garodia & Others
[1996 (1) CHN 205], In the Goods of Mohammad Bashir
(deceased) [AIR 1964 Cal 34] and Smt. Namita Singha v.
Joydeb Chandra Paul [AIR 2006 Cal 230]; by the Madras High
. H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 683
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J]

Court in M. S. Saraswathi v. M. S. Selvadurai & Anr. [(1997) 3 A
LW 541 (Mad)]; and by the Bombay High Court in Mrs. Perviz
Sarosh Batliwalla &Anr. v. Mrs. Viloo Plumber&Anr. [AIR 2000
Born 189] and Rajiv Ramprasad Gupta v. Rusto.m Sam Boyee
[AIR 2003 Born 242].

75. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Jethmalani on B
Nobeen Chander Sil and others v. Bhobosoondari Debee [ILR
6 Calcutta 460]. Therein, Field, J. interpre.ting Section 242 of
the 1925 Act opined that if any person can show that he was

- entitled to maintain a suit in respect of property over which
probate would have effect, he possesses a sufficient interest to
enter a caveat and oppose the grant of probate.
c

76. Such a suit, however, in our opinion must have a direct
nexus with the estate of the testator and not to enforce a right in
respect of the application of the estate of the testator under
0
another will. Right to maintain a suit must be independent of the
wills sought to be probated. No legal right accrues under an
unprobated Will except in case where taking of probate is not
mandatory. In Nobeen Chander Sil (supra) the appellants therein
had a direct interest in disputing the Will. He had obtained a
money decree against the testator. His share was under E
attachment. In the aforementioned factual backdrop, it was held:

"What is the meaning of the expression "persons claiming
to have any interest ?" It appears to me that the persons
claiming to have any interest must be persons having such F
an interest as would entitle them to maintain a suit in
) respect of the subject matter of such estqte - persons
having, for example, such an interest as, according to the
practice of the Court of Chancery, would entitle them to file
a bill in a Court of Equity,"
G
77. It contains two competing passages. One rendered
by White, J. and another by Field, J.
-~ White, J. stated:
"It is not.necessary to consider whether the case cited by H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A the District Judge is good law, for it does not determine
the question with which we have to deal. In that case the
parties opposing the probate were simple creditors of a
person who was the heir of the deceased, supposing the
testator had died without a will, and supposing also that
B he had not adopted a son. In the present case the
appellants have a claim upon the immoveable property
left by the testator - two of them as mortgagees of the
persons who, if the testator left no will, are entitled to create
the mortgage, and one of the appellants as the attaching
c creditor of one of these persons."
78. Field, J., however, expanded the ambit of 'caveatable
interest'.
A suit which would be maintainable must have so~ething
to do with the estate of the testator. Inheritance by Will itself may
0
be a subject matter of contention. Whether the interest claimed
by the caveator is an established one or a bare claim must satisfy
the test that there exists an interest in the estate of the testator
and the same is not adverse thereto.

E The said decision has been followed by other High Courts
as for example G. Jayakumar v. R. Ramaratnam [AIR 1972
Mad 212] wherein it was held:-
14. In support of this view, their Lordships quoted the
observations of Field J., in the matter of the petition of
F Bhobosoonduri Dabee, !LR (1881) 6 Cal 460 to the
following effect:-
"As to the test of what constitutes a sufficient interest
to entitle any particular person to be made a party,
according to the view which I have already stated, I
G
think ii comes to this that any person has a sufficient
interest who can show that he is a entitled to maintain
a suit in respect of the property over which the probate
would have effect under the provisions of Section
242 of the Indian Succession Act."
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 685
ANO OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

To the same effect is a decision of Calcutta High Court in A
Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaran Chandra Biswas and others
[AIR 1932 Calcutta 734].

As would appear from the discussions made hereinafter,
the said view, to our mind, is not entirely correct.
B
A caveatable interest was claimed therein on the basis of
acquisition of a subsequent interest from the daughter of the
testator. The District Judge held that he did not have a caveatable
interest. The Calcutta High Court, interpreting Section 283 (1 )( c)
of the 1925 Act, he!d: c
" ... And possibility of an interest does not apply to
possibility of a party filling a character which would give
him an interest but to the possibility of his having an interest
in the result of setting aside the will. .. "
0
As the caveator acquired an interest from the daughter,
he was said to have a caveatable interest.
~

79. Although we may not be very much concerned with the
caveatable interest of the reversioners, a large number of
decisions of the Calcutta and Madras High Courts were cited E
by Mr. Jethmalani to show that such an interest was held to be a
caveatable interest.

80. One of the judgments relied upon was Brindaban
Chandra Shaha v. Sureshwar Shaha Parmanick and others
(10 Cal. LJ 263]. In that case, the caveator was found to have F
been entitled to inherit the property of the testatrix, if the court
J
refused to grant probate. Noticing the statement of law that the
interest of a Hindu reversioner expectant upon the death of a
Hindu female cannot be validly alienated, it was held that a Hindu
widow not only cannot dispose off the estate, but also cannot G
bind the reversioner's expectant rights. Having said so, a
question was posed. Does it necessarily mean that such a
person has not such an interest in the estate under Section 69
-;
• of the Probate and Administration Act so as to entitle him to
oppose the grant of probate of a Will which if probated is likely H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S C.R.

t. to prejudice him? Answering the said question, this Court held: .,.
;, ... Although a reversioner under the Hindu Law has no
present interest in the property left by deceased, yet it is
manifest that he is substantially interested in the protection
or devolution of the estate. It is well-settled that a
8 reversioner can sue to restrain waste Hurry Doss v.
Rangunmoney [(1851) Sev 657]. The reversioner can, if
he makes out a proper case Jbtain an order for the
appointment of the receiver .... "

c On that premise, a reversioner was held to have a
caveatable interest.

81. Nobeen Chander Sil (supra) and Abhiram Dass
(supra) were also noticed therein. It was, however, held that it
was not necessary to express any opinion on the other questions
D raised having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.

82. In Gourishankar Chattoraj v. Smt. Satyaba( Debi [AIR
1931 Calcutta 470] the High Court held that the applicant
Gourishankar would not have inherited the estate of testatrix
Charumati (wife of Shyamsunder) anc. furthermore held that he
E was neither a 'sapinda' nor a 'sakulya' nor a 'samanodaka' under
the Dyabhaga School of Hindu law. Despite the fact that no
opinion was expressed upon the rights of the competing heirs
in the peculiar facts of that case, Gourishankar was allowed to
appear and oppose the application for the grant of Letters of
F Administration.

83. No principle of law was laid down therein. It does not
have even a persuasive value. It, in our opinion, does not lay
down any law.
G 84. The Madras High Court, we may notice, in a recent
judgment in MS Saraswathi (supra) had a snapshot of a large
number of decisions of various High Courts operating in the
field including the decisions of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and
<\ -
Keraia High Courts. It followed a Division Bench Decision In re
H Narasimha [AIR 1975 Madras 330] wherein it was held that
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 687
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J]

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and the A
caveator being an heir alone could claim a share and his son
and, thus, the applicant therein could not claim any share as he
had no present interest in the property. It was emphasized that
a caveator if he denied the testator's title was liable to be
discharged. B
85. Real vs. Bare Interest test was considered in each of
the cases having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.

PROPOSITIONS OF LAW

86. Section 283 of the 1925 Act confers a discretion upon C
the court to invite some persons to watch the proceedings.
Who are they? They must have an interest in the estate of
the deceased. Those who pray for joining the proceeding cannot
do so despite saying that they had no interest in the estate of D
the deceased. They must be persons who have an interest in
the estate left by the deceased. An interest may be a wide one
but such an interest must not be one which would not have the
effect of destroying the estate of the testator itself.
87. Filing of a suit is contemplated inter alia in a case where E
a question relating to the succession of an estate arises.
88. We may, by way of example notice that a testator might
have entered into an agreement of sale entitling the vendee to
file a suit for specific performance of contract. On the basis
thereof, however, a caveatable interest is not created, as such F
an agreement would be binding both on the executor, if the
probate is granted, and on the heirs and legal representatives
of the deceased, if the same is refused.
89. The propositions of law which in our considered view G
may be applied in a case of this nature are:
(i) To sustain a caveat, a caveatable interest must be
shown;
(ii) The test required to be applied is: does the claim of H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A grant of probate prejudice his right because it defeats
some other line of succession in terms whereof the
caveator asserted his right.
(iii) It is a fundamental nature of a probate proceeding
that whatever would be the interest of the testator,
B the same must be accepted and the rules laid down
therein must be followed. The logical corollary
whereof would be that any person questioning the
existence of title in respect of the estate or capacity
of the testator to dispose of the property by Will on
c ground outside the law of succession would be a
stranger to the probate proceeding inasmuch as none
of such rights can effectively be adjudicated therein.
APPLICATION OF THE RULES:
D 90. The bare possibility test as advanced in Brindaban
Chandra Shaha (supra) as adopted in Gourishankar Chattoraj
v. Smt. Satyabati Debi [AIR 1931 Cal 470], in our opinion would
have no application in the instant case. However, we may also
notice that the Calcutta High Court itself in some of the decisions
E have applied the real interest test as for example Nabin
Chander Guha (supra) and Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraj Saha v.
Sara/a Sundari Dassya wlo Hara/al Saha [AIR 1940 Calcutta
296].
91. We may furthermore notice another line of decisions,
F where an interest in the estate of the deceased-testator which
may be affected by grant of probate of the will of the deceased
had been applied for determination of the issue of caveatable
interest, which, inter alia, are :-
1. Abhiram Dass (supra)
G
2. Nikunj Kumar Lohia (supra)
3. M. S. Saraswathi (supra)
4. Perviz Sarosh Batliwalla (supra)
1-
5. Rajiv Ramprasad Gupta (supra)
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 689
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

6. In the Goods of Mahammad Bashir (deceased) A
(supra)
7. Namita Singha (supra)
92. While determining the said question, the law governing
the intestate succession must also be kept in mind. The right of 8
the reversioner or even the doctrine of 'spes successonis' will
have no application for determining the issue in a case of this
nature.

93. Two sisters of MPB being alive (one of them is since
deceased), indisputably in the event the application for grant of C
probate of RSL in respect of the 1999 Will is refused they will
have an interest in the estate of the testatrix. The right of the
said sisters of MPB being definite and clear, it is not a case
where it is necessary to apply the bare possibility or the common
ancestor test. o
94. Both MPS and PDB claimed their interest in certain
companies. The subject matter of the Will is not the ancestral
property over which the caiteators claim any interest. It is one
thing to say that the subject matter of the will is 'coparcenary' or
a 'joint family property' in which case the larger concept of interest E
in the agnates would apply, but it is another thing to say that if
people are available who would otherwise represent the interest
of the estate and against whom citations have been issued,
others who have no interest would also be entitled to enter a
caveat. F
j.
95. In the context of the laws governing inheritance and
succession, as they then stood, the widest possible meaning to
the term "interest" might have been given in a series of decisions .
to which the learned counsel for the appellants rely upon ranging G
from Nobeen Chunder Sil (supra) to Radharaman Chowdhuri
and others vs. Gopal Chandra Chakravarty [AIR 1920 Calcutta
459] so as to hold that a caveat would be maintainable even at
the instance of a person who had been able to establish "some
sort of relationship" and howsoever distant he may be from the
deceased which per se cannot have any application after coming H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R

A into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Ordinarily, therefore, a
caveatable interest would mean an interest in the estate of the
deceased to which the caveator would otherwise be entitled to,
subject of course, of having a special interest therein
96. Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta
B were heirs and legal representatives of PDB. Even in the event
application of RSL for the grant of probate is dismissed, they
and/ or their respective heirs would continue to represent the
estate of PDB.

c 97. A Will is executed when the owner of a property forms
an opinion that his/ her estate should not devolve upon the
existing heirs according to the law governing intestate
succession. When, thus, a person who would have otherwise
succeeded to the estate of the testator, would ordinarily have a
D caveatable interest, any other person must ordinarily show a
special interest in the estate.
98. Such a special interest may be a creditor of the
deceased as was the case in Sara/a Sundari Dassya v.
Oinabandhu Roy Brajaraf Saha (Firm) [AIR 1944 PC 11]. But,
E in our opinion, the same would not mean that even if the estate
of the deceased is being represented by the legal heirs, caveat
can be entertained at the instance of a person who has no real
interest therein or in other words would merely have a contingent
interest.
F 99. A transferee pendente lite without the leave of the court
would not have a caveatable interest and as such cannot be
impleaded as a party. A person cannot also be impleaded as a
party even on an apprehension that those who have a caveatable
interest and to whom citations have been made would not take
G any interest in the litigation.
100. A tenant occupying the premises belonging to a
testator was held n,)1 to have any caveatable interest in the
property of the testator. [See Jagdish Chander v State & Anr
H 1988 RLR 678]
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 691
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA. J)

In Sunil Gupta v Kiran Girhotra & Ors. (2007 (12) SCALE A
59], this Court held:
"17. Citation, as is well-known, should be conspicuously
displayed on a notice board. Before purchasing the
properties, Amit Pahwa and consequently the appellant
had taken a calculated risk. In a situation of this nature, he B
is not a necessary party. He took the risk of the result of
the probate proceedings. His apprehension that Raj Kumar
may not take any interest in the litigation cannot by itself
a ground for interfering with the impugned judgment. It is
speculative in nature." c
101. Reliance was placed by Mr. Venugopal on an
unreported decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of
Goods of Santi Bhusan Bose, Application No. 85of1991 where
caveat was not discharged on the premise that the caveator
D
would succeed in the event of death of the heirs of the deceased.
Apart from that fact, the said decision, in our opinion. did not lay
down the correct law, even the principles enunciated will have
no application in this case as the heirs of Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar
and Smt. Radha Devi Mbhatta would succeed to their interest
in the property and not the appellants, as classified heirs E
succeed absolutely and upon death of any such heir, the estate
devolves upon the heirs of such absolute successor. There could
not, therefore, be any question of reversion of the property.
102. We are not oblivious of the fact that a judgment F
rendered in a probate proceeding is a judgment in rem. But, its
J
application is limited. A judgment rendered in a probate
proceeding would not be determinative of the question of title. If
a probate has been obtained by fraud or suppression of material
fact, the same can be the subject matter of revocation of the
G
grant in terms of Section 263 of the 1925 Act. [See Elizabeth
Antony (supra)].

~
In Basanti Devi (supra), it was held :
"23. It is now well settled that an application for grant of
H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A probate is a proceeding in rem. A probate when granted
not only binds all the parties before the Court but also
binds all other persons in all proceedings arising out of
the Will or claims under or connected therewith. Being a
judgment in rem, a person, who is aggrieved thereby and
B having had no knowledge about the proceedings and
proper citations having not been made, is entitled to file
an application for revocation of probate on such grounds
as may be available to him. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the application for revocation of the grant of
c probate should have been entertained."

[See also Sunil Gupta (supra)].

These decisions relied upon by Mr. Jethmalani relating to
revocation of grant, as for example Brindaban Chandra Shah
(supra) are, thus, not applicable to the facts of the present case.
0
103. We may notice that in Jagdish Prasad Tulshian vs
Yasheen Jain [AIR 2007 Calcutta 218], the Calcutta High Court
held:

"20. In the case of Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John
E Crown Lengera reported in 1990 (3) SCC 333 : (Al R 1990
SC 1576), the Supreme Court was dealing with an
application for revocation of grant of a Probate and in the
said case a party sought to establish a caveatable interest
on the basis of a Will though the said Will or the copy
F thereof was not filed before the Court. In such a case, the
Supreme Court was of the view that it was not expedient
to reopen the matter. In the said case, the Supreme Court,
however, held that for the purpose of revocation of a grant
within the scope of Section 263 of the Indian Succession
G Act, the absence of caveatable interest does not stand in
the way. In the case before us, we are not cancerned with
a case of revocation of grant. Therefore, the principle laid
down in the said decision, cannot have any application to
the case before us. Moreover, in that case, even the copy
H of the purported Will was not produced."
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 693
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

What would be the cavetable interest would, thus, depend A
upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. No hard and fast
rule, as such, can be laid down. We have merely made attempts
to lay down certain broad legal principles.

INTERPRETATION
8
'· 104. A statute must be interpreted having regard to the
purport and object of the Act. The doctrine of purposive
construction must be resorted to in a case of this nature. The
court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable legislator. In
New Indian Assurance Co. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. c
[2007 (14) SCALE 556], it was held :

"50. Except in the first category of cases, as has been
noticed by us hereinbefore, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act,
in our opinion, may have to be construed differently in
view of the decisions rendered by this Court. If the landlord D
being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India is required to prove fairness and
reasonableness on its part in initiating a proceeding, it is
for it to show how its prayer meets the constitutional
requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For E
proper interpretation not only the basic principles of natural
justice have to be borne in mind, but also principles of
constitutionalism involved therein. With a view to read the
provisions of the Act in a proper and effective manner, we
are of the opinion that literal interpretation, if given, may F
give rise to an anomaly or absurdity which must be
avoided. So as to enable a superior court to interpret a
statute in a reasonable manner, the court must place itself
in the chair of a reasonable legislator/ author. So done,
the rules of purposive construction have to be resorted to
G
which would require the construction of the Act in such a
manner so as to see that the object of the Act fulfilled;
'I which in turn would lead the beneficiary under the statutory
~.,.
scheme to fulfill its constitutional obligations as held by
the court inter alia in Ashoka Marketing Ltd (supra).
H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.

A 51. Barak in his exhaustive work on ·Purposive
Construction' explains various meanings attributed to the
term "purpose". It would be in the fitness of discussion to
refer to Purposive Construction in Barak's words: -
"Hart and Sachs also appear to treat "purpose" as a
B subjective concept. I say "appear" because, although
Hart and Sachs claim that the interpreter should
imagine himself or herself in the legislator's shoes,
they introduce two elements of objectivity: First, the
interpreter should assume that the legislature is
c composed of reasonable people seeking to achieve
reasonable goals in a reasonable manner; and
second, the interpreter should accept the non-
rebuttable presumption that members of the
legislative body sought to fulfill their constitutional
D duties in good faith. This formulation allows the
interpreter to inquire not into the subjective intent of
the author, but rather the intent the author would have
had, had he or she acted reasonably."

(See also Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v Maddula
E Ratnavalli & Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 81, para 22)

In so doing, it would not be permissible for the court to
construe the provisions in such a manner which would destroy
the very purpose for which the same was enacted. The principles
F in regard to the approach of the Court in interpreting the
provisions of a statute with the change in the societal condition
must also be borne in mind .
. 105. In Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association of India &
Ors. [(2007) 13 SCALE 762]. this Court held :
G
"8. Changed social psyche and expectations are important
factors to be considered in the upkeep of law. Decision
on relevance will be more often a function of time we are
operating in. Primacy to such transformation in
constitutional rights analysis would not be out of place. It
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 695
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

will be in fitness of the discussion to refer to the following A
text from "Habits of the Heart: Individualism and
• Commitment in American Life" by R. Bellah, R. Madsen,
W. Sullivan, A. Swidler and S. Tipton, 1985, page 286
'Nhich suggests factoring in of such social changes.
"The transformation of our culture and our society B
would have to happen at a number of levels. If it
occurred only in the minds of individuals (as to some
degree it already has) it would be powerless. If it
came only from the initiative of the state, it would be
tyrannical. Personal transformation among large c
numbers is essential, and it must not only be a
transformation of consciousness but must also
involve individual action. But individuals need the
nurture of crops that carry a moral tradition reinforcing
their own aspirations. D
~·
These are commitments that require a new social
ecology .and a social movement dedicated to the
idea of such a transformation."
106. The decisions which were rendered prior to coming E
into force of the Hindu Succession Act, thus, may not be of much
relevance. Now, if on the interpretation of law, as then stood, a
reversioner or a distant relative who could have succeeded to
the interest of the testator was entitled to file a caveat, they would
not be now, as the law of inheritance and succession is governed F
by a Parliamentary Act.
)

107. Directly or indirectly the appellants and in particular
KKB is questioning the title or disposing power of the testator,
which is impermissible in a probate proceeding. Appellants. in
fact, have been prevaricating their stand from proceeding to G
proceeding. They have been raising various contentions which
are wholly impermissible in law.
-~
108. Be that as it may. even the decisions relied upon by
Mr. Jethmalani were rendered in the factual situation obtaining
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A therein.

109. It is in that backdrop the question which 1s requi;ed
to be posed is: Did the Calcutta High Court or the other High
Court opine that even a busy body or an interloper having no
legitimate concern in the outcome of the probate proceedings
8 would be entitled to lodge a caveat and oppose the probate?
The answer thereto, in our opinion, must be rendered in the
negative. If anybody and everybody including a busy body or an
interloper is found to be entitled to enter a caveat and oppose,
grant of a probate, then Sections 283(1 )(c) and 284 of the 1925
C Act would have been differently worded. Such an interpretation
would lead to an anomalous situation. It is, therefore, not possible
for us to accede to the submission of the learned counsel that
caveatable interest should be construed very widely.

D 11 O.A caveatable interest is not synonymous with the word
'contention'. A 'contention' can be raised only by a person who
has a caveatable interest. The dictionary meaning of
'contention', therefore, in the aforementioned context cannot
have any application in a proceeding under the 1925 Act.

E 111. While interpreting the provisions of a statute, we must
also bear in mind the admitted legal position that a probate
proceeding should not be permitted to be converted into a title
suit. It should not be permitted to become an unchartered field
to be trespassed into by persons even if he is not affected by
F testamentary disposition.
SECTION 284 OF THE ACT
112. Section 284 of the 1925 Act may have to be construed
keeping in view the aforementioned legal principles. It does not
G lay down the qualifications or disqualifications of the caveator.
Once a caveat is filed, it is for the court to determine the question
as to whether the caveator has any caveatable interest or not.

113. Section 284 of the 1925 Act only provides for a forum
and nothing more. It has nothing to do with qualification. Drawing
H our attention to the decisions prevailing prior to coming into force
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 697
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

of the 1925 Act, some of which have been noticed by us A
hereinbefore, as also the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Pirajshah Bikhaji & Others v. Pestonji Merwanji [(1910) ILR
'
-!" 34 Bombay 459], the learned senior counsel contended that
the legislature having not changed the wordings of the earlier
statute despite judicial interpretation of the terminologies B
thereof, must be held to have not intended to rectify the same.
114. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the said
question as we have held that the decisions upon which reliance
has been placed are either not good law or not relevant for our
•. purpose . c
RULES OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
115. The Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court provide
for determination of the issue of caveatable interest as a
preliminary issue. We do not see any reason as to why the High D
Court, in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section
122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not frame such Rules.
After coming into force of the Constitution such Rules can also
be framed by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. E
If the contention of Mr. Jethmalani is to be accepted that
there being no such provision in the Act for determination of
such an issue as preliminary issue, the High Court chould not
have framed the Rules, we are of the opinion that in a similar
situation this Court also could not direct listing of the writ petitions F
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for preliminary hearing
in terms of the Supreme Court Rules. The Court having regard
to its general power as also the power under Order XIV Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure can decide the matter by framing
preliminary issues in regard to the maintainability or otherwise . G
of the application. It is a rule of procedure and not of substance.
A court is entitled to dismiss a lis at the threshold if it is found
-·- not maintainable. The Court even in absence of any rule must
-) take the precaution of not indulging in wasteful expenditure of
its time at the instance of the litigants who have no case at all. H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A We do not, therefore, find any legal infirmity in the Rules.
MUTUAL WILLS
116. We have noticed the recitals of the 1982 Wills
purported to have been executed by MPB and PDB. Whether
B the same constitutes a mutual Will in the sense that thereby an
agreement had been entered into by and between the husband
and the wife in regard to the application of the property is in
question. We although may not be directly concerned therewith,
the law operating in the field should be considered only on the
c premise as to whether the said doctrine creates any caveatable
interest in the executors of the will. A Will by its nature is
revocable. It is the last desire of the testator. Till he breathes his
last, he will have a final say. In short, the latter Will revoking the
earlier Will would be probated. It is one thing to say that the
agreement between the parties to the purported mutual Will
0
would not affect any agreement or arrangement on the
application of the latter Will or the estate of the testator must be
administered in terms of such agreement.
The proposition of law as such is not much in dispute.
E Despite the existence of a mutual Will, the representative under
the latter Will will take the property. He, however, takes the
property subject to the terms of the Mutual Will. Whether there
exists any such agreement enforceable either in equity or by
way of a suit for specific performance, will have to be considered
F only in the event the probate is granted and not prior thereto.
117. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume
50, page 108, it is stated:
"221 ... Even when there is such an agreement and one
party has died after departing from it by revoking or
G
altering the will, the survivor having notice of the breach
cannot claim to have the later will set aside, since the
notice gives him the chance of altering the will as regards
his own property, and the death of the deceased party is
itself sufficient notice for this purpose If. however, the
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 699
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

deceased has stood by the agreement and not revoked A
or altered his will, the survivor is bound by it, and although
., probate will be granted of a later will, the survivor is bound
by it, and although probate will be granted of a later Will
made by him in breach of the agreement, since a court of
probate is only concerned with the last will, the personal B
representatives of the survivor nevertheless hold his estate
'· in trust to give effect to the provisions of the joint will or
mutual wills.

Where mutual will, whether constrained in a joint will or in
separate documents, relate to joint property, the agreement c
to make the mutual wills and the making of the dispositions
in pursuance of the agreement, sever the joint tenancy
and convert it into a tenancy in common."

[Emphasis supplied]
D
118. In Lewin on Trusts, Seventeenth Edition, pages 270-
,;.. 271, it is stated:
"10-27 ... If the survivor, whether or not after taking an actual
benefit under the arrangement, alters his will, his personal
representative takes the property which is subject to the E
agreement upon trust to perform the contract. Equity cannot
prevent the survivor from revoking his will, for instance, by
marriage or another will, but it causes his personal
representatives to give effect to his revoked will in so far
as his contract bound him not to revoke it. .. " F

). [See also Theobald on Wills, Sixteenth edition, pages 26,
27 (Paras 2.09 & 2.11) ].

119. Similar statement of law can be found In Williams,
Mortimer and Sunnucks on Executors, Administrators and G
Probate, 18th edition. pages 131-132.

• , ~
While dealing with the probate issue, therefore, the authors
-) categorically state that only the latter Will would have to be
probated.
H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A 120. We may notice a decision rendered in our country in
this regard.
In Kuppuswami Raja and another v. Perumal Raja and
Others [AIR 1964 Madras 291], the Madras High Court stated
the law, thus:
-
B
"We confess that the matter is not free from difficulty. But
after a careful consideration of all the aspects of the matter,
we are inclined to take the view that a joint mutual Will
becomes irrevocable on the death of one of the testators
c if the survivor had received benefits under the mutual
Will, and that there need not be a specific contract
prohibiting revocation when the arrangement takes the
form of not two simultaneous mutual Wills but one single
document. In fact in some of the cases referred to above
this aspect that if the two testators had executed one single
D
document as one single mutual Wi!I the position may be
different is actually adverted to. In our opinion, if one single
document is executed by both the brothers using the ""
expressions "our property" "our present wishes" "our Will"
and such similar expressions, it is strong cogent evidence
E of the intention that there is no power to revoke except by
mutual consent."
Such is not the case here.
121. Mr. Jethmalani has relied upon a decision in Walker
F and Another v. Gaskill and Others [1914] P. 192. Therein, Wills
were made between the wife and husband in October, 1907. A
Codicil and subsequent Will were made in breach of a definite
arrangement. Plaintiffs thereof were appointed as executors
under the Will of 22nd January, 1913. The husband died on 201h
G October, 1911 Terming the two Wills of 1907 as mutual Wills, a
contention was raised that the stipulations made therein
remained irrevocable despite the death of the husband. It was
held "the function of this Court as a Court of Probate is to
...
~-
ascertain and pronounce that is the last Will, or what are the
H testamentary documents constituting the last Will, of a testator,
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 701
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J]

which is or are entitled to be admitted to probate". A
-f
,.
122. The contention that such a Will was irrevocable was
held to be lacking any foundation. The court refused to go into
the question as to whether the court having the jurisdiction to
decide both the contentions independently should go thereinto
by holding that it being a court of probate and not a court of B
construction, it could only construe testamentary documents to
the extent of determining those testamentary documents that
should be admitted for probate.

123. What could be done and has not been done by a c
court of equity does not create a precedent. It does not even
have a persuasive value. In this country, we are bound to follow
the law laid down under the statute or the decision which create
binding precedents. An observation made by a Court of Probate
would not persuade us to hold that the High Court should have
D
taken recourse to "advance from the. region of testamentary
disposition into that of contracts and trusts and to declare certain
,)-.
trusts upon the footing of contract" which could be done by the
Chancery Division.
124. The American law operating in the field may be noticed E
from American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Vol. 79, page
850 in the following terms:

"The breach of a contract for the joint execution of a will,
or the execution of separate wills, containing reciprocal
bequests, gives rise to the same remedies in favor of the F
injured party as are employed in other cases of breach of
--< ;
contract to make a will, namely, an action at law for
damages and a suit in equity, but it is to be observed that
the latter is the type of relief usually invoked. In fact,
according to some authority, only a court of equity can G
take cognizance of an allegation that the revocation of a
joint and mutual will by the surviving testator was in violation
_,' of his contract with the deceased testator.
' -~
I In any case, the enforceability of a contract to make wills
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A containing mutual and reciprocal provisions depends, of ~

course, upon the establishment of the contract by good ~
and sufficient evidence.
"794. Remedy in probate court; contest of revoking will.

B A probate court whose jurisdiction is limited to the
determination of the issue whether the instrument
propounded is the last will of the decent lacks power to
enforce an agreement between two testators to make wills
which are mutual and reciprocal in their provisions.
c Generally speaking, the remedy of a person injured by the
violation of a contract for the execution of wills containing
reciprocal bequests and bequests to third persons
effective upon the death of the surviving testator is not to
be had in a contest of the probate of the will which
constitutes the violation of which complaint is made, since,
D
in the absence of statute, the only issue on a contested
probate is whether the paper propounded is "the last will ;,,
of the decent."" ~

[See also Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. XCVll, pages 304
E to 312]
125. Relying on a decision in Branchf/oweret al v. Massey
[208 P. 2d 341], it was contended by Mr. Jethmalani that the
Probate Court may also examine a witness of a mutual Will.
We have examined the said decision. The proposition of law
F laid down therein was that the Probate Court will first revoke the
Will and then determine the rights under mutual Will either in
;,
equity or in specific performance. It was held that a Probate
Court cannot determine whether the proponent having revoked
her own Will is thereby estopped from claiming under the Will
G executed by the deceased pursuant to a contract between the
deceased and proponent. It referred with approval the decision
of Brazil v. Silva [181 Cal. 490] wherein it was observed:
/

"In support of their contention that the complaint does not ~-
state a cause of action, counsel for the defendant advance
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 703
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J]
1 two propositions. The first is that the matter is determined A
/
by the order admitting the will to probate. The soundness
of this position depends upon whether or not the issues
presented by the present complaint are questions going
to the final question before the probate court; that is, the
question as to the instrument being the legal and valid will B
.. of the decedent unrevoked at the time of his death. If the
issues presented by the complaint are not of this character,
it is plain that they could not be passed on in the probate
proceedings, and are not concluded by the result of those
proceedings.' (Italics supplied.)" c
126. In Massey (supra), it was observed:
"It was held that the question whether the defendant was
guilty of fraud, and therefore should be declared trustee of
the property received under the will, could not have been
D
determined in the probate proceeding, and consequently
plaintiffs were not concluded by the order admitting the
will to probate."
The said authority, therefore, does not advance the case
of the appellants. E
127. The law as prevailing in Australia is also to the same
effect, as would appear from the decision in Birmingham and
Others v. Renfrew and Others [57 C.L.R. 666].
Latham, CJ therein opined that a Will made in breach of F
an arrangement is nevertheless effective as a Will. It upheld the
dicta contained in Stone v. Hoskins (1905 P. 197] wherein the
following law was laid down:
"Though a will is always revocable, and the last must always
be the testator's will; yet a man may so bind his·assets by G
agreement that his will shall be a trustee fer performance
of his agreement... These cases are common, and there
~-

-) is no difference between promising to make a will in such
a form and making his will with a promise not to revoke it.
This court does not set aside the will; but makes the devisee H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

heir or executor trustee to perform the contract." )
A
128. The law laid down in the aforementioned treatises
and decisions rendered in different jurisdictions clearly suggests
that existence of a mutual Will or filing of a suit, by themselves,
are not sufficient to create a caveatable interest. In fact the
B appellants have disentitled themselves from lodging a caveat
as they are questioning the title of the testatrix as also her right
to execute a Will as it had been contended that she merely had
a life interest and no right of dispossession of property by Will
or otherwise.
c
They cannot fall back upon the purported "Mutual Wills"
only because they also challenge the genuineness of the 1999
will.
129. Mr. Jethmalani, furthermore, relied upon a decision
D in Re Dale (deceased) Proctor v. Dale [(1993) 4 All ER 129]
which, in our opinion, has no application in this case as it was
not a case dealing with "caveatable interest" arising out of"mutual
Wills".
Strong reliance has also been placed on Dilharshankar
E C. Bhachech v. Controller of Estate Duty [(1986) 1 SCC 701]
wherein again Halsbury's Laws of England has been quoted,
which we have noticed heretobefore.
The said decision of this Court, therefore, supports the
F contention of the first respondent and not that of the appellants.
130. It is not much in dispute that probate has to be granted •
to the latter Will even when made in prejudice of the agreement
not to revoke the mutual wills inasmuch as the court of probate
is only concerned with the last Will.
G
131. Mr. Jethmalani has also placed strong reliance upon
a decision rendered by this Court inter-parties arising out of a
criminal case in Shiva Nath Prasad v. State of WB. and Others
[(2006) 2 sec 757]. Therein, this Court was concerned with ~-

the question as to whether a First Information Report lodged
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 705
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]
"1_ against the first respondent herein and others under Sections A
417 and 420 ofthe Indian Penal Code should be quashed. This
Court dealt at some details with the legal principles behind the
doctrine of mutual Will, ultimately to hold:
"48. We have referred to the doctrine of mutual and.
reciprocal wills and trusts only to understand the basis of B
-i
the complaint... "
That far and no further.

Some observations have been made in paragraph 49 of
the said judgment but yet again it was opined: c
''50. We have entered into the above discussion, not to
express any opinion, but to· answer the main plank of the
argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that this
case basically involves a·. civil dispute. None of our
D
observations be treated as expressionof our opinion on
the rightfulness of the claim made in the complaint."
Shiva Nath Prasad (supra), therefore, is not an authority
on the legal principles of mutual Will.
132. Ttie principles which can be deduced from the
E
discussions made heretobefore are :-

(i) A Will made in prejudice of an agreement will
nevertheless be effective as a Will as it is by its very
nature and by its very essence a revocable F
instrument.
)
(ii) A subsequent infringing Will would be valid even if it
revokes an earlier Mutual Will.
(iii) Similarity of the terms would not be enough to G
establish the necessary agreement.
(iv) Whether a legatee has taken any benefit' under the
"'-) alleged Wills of 1982 would, however, be relevant.
FAMILY INTEREST
H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A 133. It is too far fetched a submission that a person having )

a remote family connection or as an agnate is entitled to file a
caveat. A reversioner or an agnate or a family member can
maintain a caveat only when there is a possibility of his
inheritance of the property in the event the probate of the Will is
B not granted. If there are heirs intestate who are alive, entertaining
of a caveat on the part of another family member or a reversioner
or an agnate or cognate would never arise.

134. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has brought about
a sea change in the matter of inheritance and succession.
c "Agante" has been defined in the Hindu Succession Act to mean:
"agnate"- one person is said to be an "agnate" of another
if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through
males;"
D 135. Agnate or cognates are, thus, recognized as heirs.
They may be the erstwhile members of a nuclear family. So far
,._
as heirs and legal representatives of the family are concerned,
the Hindu Succession Act clearly lays down five classes of heirs,
Sisters of husband belong to Class II heir. They succeeded to
E the interest of MPB in 2004 on the death of PDB. Appellants
accepted the said fact but contended that as the life of the said
heirs was uncertain they, thus, have a caveatable interest. It has
been accepted that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining
the successors of PDB. It is an indisputable case of intestacy
F having regard to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.
136. It was contended that having regard to the testate
succession created by reason of the Will and the matter
remaining pending for last three years, the claim of the
appellants and family members is required to be decided on
G the happening of certain contingencies in the intervening period
between the death of PDB and the ultimate decision of the
probate application, as one of the heirs of PDB has died.
,,.
137. The submission, to say the least, is fallacious. The ~-
heirs of the deceased have already been impleaded as parties.
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 707
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

i Inheritance to an estate never remains in abeyance. In the event A
of death of the sisters of MPB, their heirs and legal
representatives would inherit the property in their own right and
not as the heirs of MPB. The dispute regarding intestacy does
not change the law of succession and inheritance.

138. As Agnates KKB, BKB, YB and GPB also claimed B
1
caveatable interest as agnates. Entry 2 of Class II of the
Schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act in this case
would not bring them into the picture, as agnates will acquire an
interest only when there is no heir of either Class I or Class II.
When there exists Class II heirs, the appellants would not have c
any real interest in the property. The property upon the death of
Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta would
pass on to their legal heirs. Appellants being not the heirs of
MPB or PDB have no caveatable interest.
D
SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING
139. The theory of looking after the spiritual well-being of
the deceased soul by the near relatives has no application for
the purpose of judging the validity or otherwise of a Will; more
so, after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 E
as in terms thereof the concept of succession to the estate of a
deceased on the said consideration has lost its relevance. Such
a contention, therefore, must be rejected out right, being a wholly
misconceived one.

140. The doctrine of 'larger circle of the caveators as being F
members of the Birla family' and to protect the spiritual interest
i
does not convert a non-existent interest into a caveatable
interest. Such a question had not been raised even in the
affidavits of the appellants. We do not find any force therein.
G
QUALITY OF TITLE
141. We may notice the affidavit of Shri KKB in opposition
'-) to the grant of probate, as a caveator. In the said affidavit, apart
from the genuineness of the 1999 Will, the power of the testatrix
to execute the same has also been questioned. H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A In paragraph 7, it is contended:
"7. It will be evident from the same that the deceased,
Late Priyamvada Devi Birla was very closely connected
to me. She was related to my wife (being her aunt) and
was the wife of my paternal first cousin Late Madhav
B Prasad Birla."
The merit of the Will has been discussed in the following
terms:
"(a) In 1981, the deceased and her husband Madhav
c Prasad Birla, who is also deceased, agreed as to the
disposal of their property in favour of charities and had
executed mutual Will in pursuance of the agreement both
date May 10, 1981. In 1982, by consent they revoked the
said mutual Will but agreed once again with each other as
D to the disposition of their respective estates on their deaths
in favour of charities as ultimate beneficiaries. and that
Wills made pursuant to such agreement would be
irrevocable and would remain unaltered.
(b) In pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration
E of it, the deceased and her husband made their respective
Will both dated July 13, 1982 virtually reiterating the
provisions of their earlier wills but increasing the number
of Executors from three to four in each will. Each of them,
by his or her Will devised and bequeathed his or her entire
F estate to the other absolutely and in the event of the other
predeceasing him or her as case may be, the Executors •.
appointed in their respective Wills were directed to make
over, donate or settle the entire estate, barring certain
specific legacies for charitable purposes at their absolute
G discretion.
(c) The husband of the deceased died on July 30, 1990 }

and the deceased as beneficiary of her husband's Will
{-~
came to possess, own and control his estate in terms
thereof and thus had taken and enjoyed the benefit under
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 709
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

the said Will until her death. A
(d} The purported Will dated April 18, 1999 has thus been
. allegedly executed by the deceased in clear breach and
total disregard of the subject matter of the agreement and
the mutual Will of the deceased and her husband. It is
inconceivable that the deceased consciously would so 8
conduct herself which. would amount to fraud on her
husband. The said purported Will is not her Will.

a
(e) On true construction of the terms and tenor of the
aforesaid Wills and in the events which had happened, c
the deceased had only a life interest in the estate of her
husband without b~ing competent to dispose of on. her
own, the combined estate by alienation or dissipation in
· a manner inconsistent with the terms and tenor of the mutual
Wills. The disposition made in favour of Rajendra S. Lodha
0
under the purported Will dated April 18, 1999 is, therefore,
unlawful, unauthorized and cannot be binding, as the entire
estate of the deceased stood impressed with the trust in
terms of the mutual Wills.
(f) Accordingly on her death, the surviving executors of the E
Will of the deceased and her husband are entitled to take
possession of her entire estate and make over, donate or
settle the same for the purposes of charitable trust at their
absolute discretion. The surviving executors as trustees
of the constructive trust which came into being on the basis F
ofthe mutual Wills are entitled to execute and implement
)
the said trust and do all things necessary for the said
purposes.
(g) The petitioner is not entitled to put any impediment in
the implementation of the said trust. G
(h) I am one of the surviving executors of the said mutual

r
will of Late Madhav Prasad Birla executed on July 13,
1982."

The said affidavit also reiterates the contents of the plaint. H
!'
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A No contention, however, has been raised that they have a r
•
caveatable interest keeping in view the spiritual life of MPS and
the testatrix as a member of the family or otherwise. Similar
affidavits have been filed by B.K. Birla, Yashovardhan Birla, Smt.
Laxmi Devi Newar and Smt. Radha Devi Mohatta. The sisters
8 are also supporting the Birla family.
The claim of acquiring cavetable interest on the said basis,
thus, is wholly unacceptable.
PRE-EMPTION : FUTURE DOMAIN DOCTRINE
c 142. A right to claim pre-emption is not a right in the estate.
It creates an interest in the property. It does not create an interest
in succession. If such a right has been created by an agreement,
the same can be enforced only in the event any contingency in
that behalf takes place. A Will is not a transfer for enforcement
D of a right of pre-emption under a contract. It must be enforced
by a suit. On the right of pre-emption based on consanguinity
being unconstitutional, we may notice the decision of this court ...
in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1986) 2 SCC
249), wherein while striking down Section 15(1 )(a) of the Punjab
E Pre-emption Act, 1913 as being ultravires of Article 14 of the
Constitution it was opined at Paragraph 2:
"The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity has been
variously described by learned judges as 'feudal',
'piratical', 'tribal', 'weak', 'easily defeated', etc. [Kalwa v.
F Vasakha Singh A.l.R. 1983 Punjab & Haryana 480 (F.8.)
at 490 and Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh [1959) S.C.R.
878.) Fusing as it does the ties of blood and soil, it cannot
be doubted that the right is antiquated and feudal in origin
and in character."
G
It was thus held:
"We are thus unable to find any justification for the ;-
classification contained in Section 15 of the Punjab Pre- )

emption Act of the kinsfolk entitled to pre-emption. The
H right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is a relied of
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 711
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

the feudal past. It is totally inconsistent with the A
Constitutional scheme. It is inconsistent with modern ideas.
The reasons which justified its recognition quarter of a
century ago, namely, the preservation of the integrity of
rural society, the unity of family life and the agnatic theory
of succession are today irrelevant. The list of kinsfolk s
mentioned as entitled to pre-emption is intrinsically
defective and self-contradictory. There is, therefore, no
reasonable classification and clauses 'First', 'Secondly',
and 'Thirdly' of Section 15(1 )(a), 'First', 'Secondly' and
'Thirdly', of Section 15(1 )(b), Clauses 'First', 'Secondly' c
and 'thirdly' of Section 15(1 )(C) and the whole of Section
15(2) are, therefore, declared ultra vires'the Constitution."
143. KKB, BKB and GPB claimed caveatable interest as
co-owners of 115th share in Kumaon Orchards, two other co-
owners being PB and S.K. Birla. S.K. Birla does not claim any D
caveatable interest in the estate of PDB. Even a person claiming
an interest in the property of the testator by reason of an
agreement for sale would not have a caveatable interest on the
premise that such an agreement would be binding both upon
the executor as also upon the heirs of the deceased (in the event, E
probate is not granted). The same principle would apply herein.
Right of pre-emption, if any, is not affected by grant of probate.
A right of pre-emption wou Id arise only when a voluntary transfer
is made for consideration in favour of a stranger and not prior
thereto. F
144. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Venugopal on
Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj [(1991) 2 SCC 128]. We may notice
that therein a decree for pre-emption had already been granted.
145. Right of a co-owner is not affected by testamentary G
disposition. Indisputably, the object of conferring the right on a
co-sharer or owner of an adjacent immovable property is to

r
exclude strangers from acquiring interest in an immovable
property as a co-sharer or to keep objectionable strangers away
from the neighbourhood. The same by itself, in our considered
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

)
A opinion, does not constitute a caveatable interest. A right of pre-
emption as was submitted by Mr. Venugopal may run with the
land as has been held in Sri Audh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar
Jaipuria & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 417], but, the same would not, it
is bear repetition to state, constitute any caveatable interest.
B AS EXECUTORS OF 1982 WILL
146. BKB claims to have a ceveatable interest as an
executor of the 1982 Will of PDB. A deed of appointment was
executed on 25th August, 2004 to fill up a purported vacancy
c caused by the death of MPB. So far as the claim of BKB and
GPB are concerned, the same are required to be dealt with
separately.

147. MPB was an executor under the 1982 Will of PDB.
He expired in 1990. The deed of appointment was executed on
D 25th August, 2004. Both the learned Single Judge as also the
Division Bench of the High Court opined that MPB never ceased
to be the executor. The High Court noticed a term of purported
1982 Will, which reads as under:-

"If any of them ceases to be executor for any reason, '
E survivor or survivors might, if he or they so desire, fill up
such vacancy or vacancies with a person of their choice."
148. It was furthermore held that on the death of PDB, the
three executors were alive. It was furthermore noticed that he
F did not claim any caveatable interest as an executor to the 1982
Will. Such a claim was made for the first time in a supplementary
affidavit in opposition filed on 25th August, 2004 after the
commencement of the hearing of the application for discharge.
It was not averred that MPB had ever become an executor or
ceased to be an executor under the said Deed of Appointment.
G
149. Section 2(c) of the 1925 Act defines 'executor' to
mean "a person to whom the execution of the last will of a
deceased person is, by the testator's appointment, confided." I

150. 'Will' has been defined in Section 2(h) to mean "the
H
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 713
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his A
property which he desires to be carried into effect after his
death.".
Will takes effect after the death of testator. Rights and
obligations of an executor of a Will arise only then. No right is
created in the executor during the life time of the testator. B
a
Appointment ofa testator and appointment of trustee stand
completely on different footings.

151. A person named as an executor under a Will cannot
claim any right to act as an executor until the death of the testator. c
He has to survive him. He has to accept the office as an executor
expressly or by conduct. The term "ceasing to be" thus
necessarily means assumption of office of executor and
thereafter ceasing to hold such office, by renouncement or
removal or death, etc.
D
In Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Company [(1899) 1
.~
LR.Ch.D. 775] interpretation of the words "cease to hold" was
held to mean that a director could not 'cease' to hold a
qualification which he never possessed. Thus, ifa Director is
named in the articles, and never had a qualification, he cannot E
be said. to cease to hold it, stating:
"If Lord Norreys had been only a de facto director and
never a de jure director, I think there might have been
force in this contention ; but it seems to follow from what
I have held on the first point that Lord Norryes, not having F
ceased to be a director, must be regarded as still a
member of the board, and as suc.h entitled to
remuneration."
152. The genuineness of the Will executed by MPB and
G
PDB in 1982 is not admitted by the first respondent. Their
genuineness therefore is in question.
We have noticed hereinbefore in brief the stipulations
made in the said Will. We have also noticed that Shri P.L.
Agarwal is an attesting witness in all the three documents. It H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

)
A may, however, be placed on record that the 1999 Will is a
registered one. The 1982 Wills are not.

153. Mr. K.K. Venugopal has relied upon two decisions of
the English Courts being In Re Lighton [ER (1 HAGG. ECC)
569] and In RE Henrietta Johnson [ER (1 SW&TR-18) 609]
B
In Re Lighton (supra}, a Will was executed on 17th March,
1827, The executors were appointed in the following terms:

"And of this my will I nominate, constitute and appoint Sir
Samuel Hayes, and the Reverend Steward Hamilton,
c executors and trustees; and, in case of the death of either
of them, I nominate and appoint Edmund Hayes, and my
brother Henry Lighton, to act and be executors and trustees
in their stead".
Having regard to the phraseology used therein, it was held
D
that the appointment of Edmund Hayes was complete stating:
'The deceased died possessed of a policy of insurance
on his own life in the Equitable Assurance Office, in
England, of the value of about 63001; and for the purpose
E of obtaining payment of it the present application was
made for a grant of probate, in this country, of the same
will to Sir Edmund Hayes. It was founded on the affidavits
of Sir Edmund Hayes, of Mr. Shaw of Dublin (who prepared
the will), and of Dr. Abraham Colles (the physician who
F attended the deceased); that he, the deceased, at the
time of executing his will, was in a very dangerous state
of health, and contemplated the near approach of his
death; and that it was intended by the deceased that the
substitution of executors should take effect in the event of
the death of either .of the first .named executors at any
G
time.
A proxy also was exhibited under the hand and seal of the ·'
Reverend Steward Hamilton, by which he waived his title #

to probate, and consented that it should pass to the
H substituted executors, jointly or severally."
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 715
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

The said decision, therefore, was rendered in the fact of A
that case.
154. In RE Henrietta Johnson (supra) in the Will made by
A, B,C,D and E were appointed executors and in case of the
death of B, F to become executor in his place. B,C,D and E
proved the Will. B and C died. F applied to have a double B
probate granted to him. D and E opposed such grant. It was
held that F was entitled to the grant and that the casualty was
not restricted to the death of B in A's life time holding:

"I should be very loath to take any presumed policy of the c
Court of Probate as my guide. In the Goods of Lighton
there were in fact two decisions for there was a grant of
the Irish Court in the first instance and that was acted upon
by the Judge of the Prerogative Court in this country. Here
there are ample grounds to satisfy me as to the intention
D
of the testatrix. Blake, the father, was trustee and executor
of the person from whom she received a considerable
amount of property in a complicated state, and John
Joseph Balko, as his father's partner, was conversant with
the whole business. These are very good reasons why the
testatrix should have desired him to succeed his father as E
her executor, and I cannot consider such substitution as
limited to the casualty of the father's decease in the lifetime
of the testatrix."

155. Reliance has also been placed upon Williams on F
Executors, 15th Edition at page 34 by Mr. Venugopal, wherein
it is stated :-

"The office of Executor being a private one of trust, and,
as a rule, named by the testator, not by the law, the person
nominated may refuse, so long as he had not intermeddled, G
though he cannot assign the office; and even if in the
lifetime of the testator he has agreed to accept the office,
it is still in his power to recede .... "
)
There is nothing to show that BKB or any other executor
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A accepted the office of the executor during the life time of MPB
or PDB. In the absence of any such statement having been
made, the said authority cannot be said to have any application.
156. In Jnanadndra Nath Mukherjee and another v.
Jitendra Nath Mukherjee and others [AIR 1928 Cal. 275] it was
B held:-
"Now the office of executor being a private office of trust
named by the testator and not by the law, one named
executor may refuse the office or renounce. It is, however,
c too late to refuse or renounce when one has once elected
to act as executor; and he may determine such election by
acts which amount to an administration."
(See also Sri Raja Kakadapudi Venkata Sudarshana
Narasayyamma and others v. Andhra Bank Ltd., Vijayawada
D and others, AIR 1960 AP 273; Ramautar Singh v. Ramsundari
Kur., AIR 1959 Pat 585 and Leo Sequiera v. Magdalene
Sequiers Bai and others, AIR 1971 Mysore 143). •
157. We may notice that in Sri Raja Kakadapudi Venkata
Sudarshana Narasayyamma (supra), it has been held :
E
"57. In Parlhasarathy Aiyar v. Subbaraya Gramany, AIR
1924 Mad 07 at p. 70, it was observed by Schwabe C. J.,
that
"It is not right, as has been suggested in some cases, to
F treat a will of which probate has not been granted as non-
existent and the property passing y intestacy."
This will of course depend upon the fact whether the plaintiff
has accepted the office as an executrix. The learned
counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on
G
certain observations in the judgment of the Madras Higb
Court in Parthasarathy Appa Rao v. Venkatadri Appa Rao,
43 Mad LJ 486 at p. 515: (AIR 1922 Mad 457 at pp. 469-
470). But that case obviously has no application, because
on the facts of that case it was found that thf' executor
H
"t
,.' KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 717
...
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J]

'( died without accepting the office or showing any indication A
that he took upon himself the duties of executor.
Whether the executor has accepted the office or not will
depend upon the facts of each case. In this case the plaintiff
has not given evidence and no oral evidence was at all
tendered by her. We can only, therefore, deduce the fact B
of her acceptance from the record available. In Ex. B-2,
the counsel of the plaintiff stated that his client was
appointed as an executrix under the will of her husband
and that he was instructed to take adequate legal steps to
have the estate duly represented. We are of opinion that c
this letter written obviously on behalf of .the plaintiff is
enough to constitute acknowledgment or the acceptance
of the plaintiff of her office as an executrix."

..: 158. In Smt. Usharani Royv. Smt. Hemlata Roy[AIR 1946
'' D
. '
Cal. 40] it was held :-
,>. "If the caveator is not the executor under the later will, a
citation would be necessary as is provided for by S. 229,
Succession Act, calling upon the executor to accept or
renounce his executorship and if the executor renounces E
or fails to accept the executorship within the time limited
for acceptance or refusal thereof, the will may be proved
and letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed
may be granted to the person who would be entitled to
administration cases of intestacy. (Section 231, F
Succession Act.)"
The said decisions, therefore, were rendered having regard
to the doctrine of renouncing the office of an executor by
implication in view of Section 229 of the 1925 Act and clearly
"' show that an executor can act only upon the death of the testator G
and not during his life time.
159. If the submission of the learned counsel that the
-) executors had interest even during the life time of MPB is
accepted the same would give rise to an absurdity.
H
d.

"'.
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 5 S.C.R.

A 160. An executor must first become an executor. As MPS 'l'
predeceased PDB, he never became an executor. If he did not
become an executor, the question of filling up of any vacancy
would not arise.
161. For the aforementioned purpose, we may assume
B that the 1982 Will was valid. As MPS could never become an
executor, BKB's appointment does not confer on him a
caveatable interest. An appointment of an executor ordinarily is
the function of a court in terms of Section 301 of the 1925 Act.
We, however, need not go into the question as to whether his
c appointment was legal or not. But, we may only notice that even
in the deed of appointment, there is nothing to show that the
necessary ingredients for appointment of 8.K. Birla by the
surviving executors had been made out as it was not stated that
the original executor had seized to hold office.
D
162. The office of executor under the 1982 Will does not · ,
carry any remuneration therewith. The power to appoint an A
'
executor was dependent upon any executor ceasing to be one.
The condition precedent has not been fulfilled. In the instant case,
MPS had never become the executor, hence, the question of
E his "ceasing to be an executor" does not arise.

163. Appellants are not the legatees of the said Will. They
are not the beneficiaries thereunder. They being merely
executors, in our opinion, would not clothe them with a right to
F lodge a caveat as by reason thereof they did not derive any
caveatable interest in the estate of PDB.
CAVEATABLE INTEREST OF GPB AS A NAMED
EXECUTOR
164. GPB was held to have caveatable interest on the
G
premise that he was named as an executor. He, therefore, in
our opinion, has rightly been held to have a caveatable interest. •
)

165. An application for grant of probate of 1982 Will is f .
also pending. Therein a contention has been raised by the first
H respondent that the said Will was not genuine. If respondent
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 719
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]

No.1 has a caveatable interest in respect of 1982 Will, we do A
not see any reason as to why GPB would not have any right in
respect of 1999 Will.
APPOINTMENT OF YB AS AN EXECUTOR IN PLACE
OF MPB
B
~
166. So far as the case of YB is concerned, his
appointment as an executor has been upheld by the High Court.
It was, however, opined that by reason thereof, he did not acquire
any caveatable interest. RSL has filed an appeal against that
part of the judgment whereby his appointment as an executor of c
the Will of MPB of 1992 in place of PDB has been upheld.

167. For the reasons stated in regard to the legal position
governing the filling up of vacancy of one of the named executors
by the others, we are of the opinion that the appointment of YB
as an executor of the Will of MPB in place of PDB cannot be D
sustained. It is not a case of YB that PDB had assumed office
or the purported Will of MPB had been given effect to.
Genuineness of the said Will is in question. KKB has already
filed an application for grant of probate in respect of the said
Will. As there is nothing to show that any vacancy has been E
created by reason of death of PDB, YB could not have been
appointed in her place at this stage.

The vacancy has to be filled up in terms of the instrument
or in accordance with law. It cannot be directed to be filled in F
equity by a Court of Law as was submitted by Mr. Venugopal.
168. We are furthermore of the opinion that only because
YB has a right to maintain a suit for purported enforcement of
the Mutual Wills, the same by itself cannot confer upon him a
caveatable interest. G

169. There exists a distinction between an executor named
by the testator in the Will and an executor who is appointed on a
-) purported vacancy arising out of death of another executor. In
the latter case such an appointment may not be valid. In a case
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A of this nature YB could not be held to have caveatable interest ~
only by reason of such an appointment as here is nothing on
record to show that PDB had enjoyed the benefit under the said
Will and not as an heir of MPB. If the Will had not been given
effect to for such a long time, there is no reason as to why the
B terms thereof should be directed to be acted upon at this juncture
and/or in terms thereof dispute between the parties in this behalf
cannot be adjudicated upon at an interlocutory stage.

170. In Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased) and after
her Legal Representative Mr. Marlean Wilkinson v. lsolyne
C Sarojbashini Bose and others [AIR 1962 SC 1471], it was
held:-.

"(7) Re. (1 ).

We have already pointed out that though it was said that
D Dr. Miss Mitter had executed a will in favour of her mother
Mrs. Mitter in June 1925 bequeathing the house in dispute
to her, no probate or letters of administration were ever
obtained by Mrs. Mitter. It is true that Mrs. Mitter in her turn
made a will in favour of the appellant and she obtained
E letters of administration of that will. In that will the house in
dispute was mentioned as the property of Mrs. Mitter was
bequeathed to the appellant and in the letters of
administration granted to her this property was mentioned
as one of the properties coming to her by the will of her
F mother. The question therefore that arises is whether it
was necessary before the appellant could take advantage
of the bequest in favour of Mrs. Mitter that letters of
administration of the will of Dr. Miss Mitter should have
been obtained by Mrs. Mitter Section 213(1) which governs
this matter is in these terms :-
-
G
"(1) No right as executer or legatee can be
established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of
competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate
of the will under which the right is claimed, or has
H granted letters of administration with the will or with
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 721
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]
'Y
a copy of an authenticated copy of will annexed." A
This section clearly creates a bar to the establishment of
any right under a will by an executor or a legatee unless
probate or letters of administration of the will have been
obtained. It is now well-settled that it is immaterial whether
~.
the right under the will is claimed as a plaintiff or a B
defendant; In either case s. 213 will be a bar to any right
being claimed by a person under a will whether as a plaintiff
or as a defendant unless probate or letters of
administration of the will have been obtained : (see
Ghanshamdoss v. Guiab Bi Bai) ((1927) I.LR. 50 Mad. c
927). But it is urged on behalf of the appellant that this
section will not bar her because she obtained letters of
administration of the will of her mother Mrs. Mitter under
which she is claiming and that it was not necessary for
Mrs. Mitter to have obtained probate of the will of Dr. Miss D
Mitter in her favour.
It was further observed :
Whosoever wishes to establish that right, whether it be a
· 1egatee or an executor himself or somebody else who E
might find it necessary in order to establish his right to
establish the right of some legatee or executor from whom
he might derived title, he cannot do so unless the will
under which the right as a legatee or executor is claimed
has resulted in the grant of a probate or letters of F
administration.
171. We may notice the findings of the learned Single ·
Judge which reads:-
"In any event going by the submission of Mr. P.K. Roy
G
learned Senior Counsel (now deceased) assent to legacy
having been given in favour of the said deceased Lady in
relation to the 1982 will. of M.P. Birla. Nothing is left by the
-)
executors so their interest if at all is no longer subsisting."
172. The affidavit of assets annexed by the Birlas to their H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A petition for grant of probate in respect of 1982 Will of MPD and
the affidavit of assets annexed by them to the petition for grant
of probate of 1982 Will of PDB show that the assets held by the
former mentioned in the petition for probate of his Will of 1982
are also shown as assets of PDB.
B APPLICATION OF SECTION 92 CPC
173. A suit contemplated under Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure cannot be equated with a probate. In a suit under
Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the title of the donor
c may be disputed. Such a question as of necessity must be gone
into by the court which, however, is a forbidden domain for the
Probate Court. Reliance has been placed on Siraju/ Haq Khan
& Others v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U. P and Others
[1959 SCR 1287] wherein this Court was of the opinion that a
person ascertaining that the property in dispute was not a wakf
0
property was entitled to be heard. In a suit of that nature the title
in the property or lack of it would be germane.
SECTION 73 OF THE INDIAN TRUST ACT.
174. Provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Trust Act have
E limited application. Applicability thereof would arise when a
trustee disclaims, dies or is absent from India for a period of
more than six months or leaves India for the purpose of residing
abroad or is declared an insolvent etc.
F 175. Prima facie BKB or YB were not appointed as trustee.
They were only appointed as executors. An executor becomes
a trustee only upon completion of administration of trust. This
proposition does not appear to be in dispute. Administration of
trust being incomplete, MPB did not become an executor. He,
G therefore, was not a trustee. Provisions of Section 73 of the
Indian Trusts Act will, therefore, have no application. In the Will
of PDB executed in the year 1982 he was merely named as an
executor. It is also difficult, at this stage, to construe the Will of
1982 of PDB as an instrument of trust. The question in regard
H to the administration of the estate of PDB only arose after her ...
'
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 723
AND OTHERS [S.B. SINHA, J.]
y
death which took place in 2004. MPB died in 1990. The said A
provisions, therefore, have. no application.
PREJUDICE ARGUMENTS
176. Submission that RSL is an outsider and the bequest
is un-natural does not appeal to us. Such a question cannot be B
determined at this stage. Why an owner of the property executes
a Will in favour of another is a matter of his/her choice. One may
by a Will deprive his close family members including his sons
and daughters. She had a right to do so. The court is concerned
with the genuineness of the Will. If it is found to be valid, no c
further question as to why did she do so would be completely
out of its domain. A Will may be executed even for the benefit of
others including animals. Various documents have been placed
before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
first respondent to show that MPB was not happy in regard to
D
management of Birlas' Group of Companies and by the division
thereof which took place after the demise of G.D. Birla in 1983.
177. Indisputably, however, theywereseparate. They were
in the control and management of their respective companies.
The group of companies managed by MPB and PDB were E
known as M.P. Birla Group of Companies. There are other
companies, named separately, in the name of individual group
of Birlas.

178. According to the first respondent he had closely been
involved in the M.P. Birla Group of Companies and had been F
inducted as Director/Co-Chairman/Chairman of various M.P.
Birla Group of Companies during the lifetime of PDB. Other
persons belonging to Birla family were not so involved. In fact
according to the appellants themselves, the first respondent was
a man of trust so far PDB is concerned as it was stated :- G

"(f) The Petitioner through Lodha &Co. and/or other firms
under his control, ostensibly or otherwise, came to be
-) appointed as statutory auditors and/or to be otherwise
involved in matters concerning the finance and accounts
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A of several companies and organizations where the Birla '
family has substantial stakes in management and/or
shareholding. By reason of the same, the petitioner came
to enjoy the trust and confidence of most of the members
of the Birla family.
B (g) After the death of late Madhav Prasad Birla in or about
July, 1990 the deceased who has had no formal education
relied and continued to rely on the petitioner and reposed
and continued to repose complete trust and confidence in
the petitioner in the matters pertaining to all her financial
c affairs by reason whereof, the petitioner was at all material
times, privy to all information concerning the personal and
financial affairs of the deceased. The deceased also
sought and obtained advice from the petitioner with regard
to her assets, savings and investments and with regard to
D and in the management and affairs of several companies
and institutions where the deceased had a stake in the
shareholding and/or management and the deceased was
at all material times accustomed to act as per the wishes
and dictates of the petitioner. The petitioner is and was at
E all material times aware of the same.
(h) By reason of the aforesaid, the petitioner was, at all
material times, in a fiduciary relationship with the
deceased."

F 179. The said arguments, therefore, do not appeal to us
to determine the issues in favour of Birlas. We wish that these
contentions were not raised before us.
APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) N0.19047 OF 2007
180. Whether RSL has a cavetable interest in the
G
proceeding in respect of the probate of the Will of MPB dated
13th July, 1982 is also in question in this appeal.
181. We have already held that GPB has caveatable { -
interests as executor of MPB in respect of his Will of 1982. We,
H therefore, see no reason as to why RSL would not have a
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA 725
AND OTHERS [S.8. SINHA, J.]
.,..
caveatable interest being a beneficiary under the 1999 .Will in A
the proceedings for grant of probate of the Will of MPB dated
1:3th July, 1982. lf the grounds taken in the appeal are to be
upheld, the same ex facie would destroy the case of the
appellants in the other cases.

SUIT ON MUTUAL WILLS B
-I

182. We have noticed hereinbefore the averments made
in the plaint of Civil Suit No.221 of 2004. Filing of the said suit,
in our opinion, does not bar considering the caveatable interest
and as we have not been called upon to decide the maintainability c
of the said suit at this stage, we do not make any observation
thereupon. We have noticed the averments made in the plaint
at some length only for the purpose of arriving at a finding on
the question as to whether the plaintiffs therein have acquired
any caveatable interest by reason thereof or not.
D
183. In our opinion, the High Court was right in opining
I
that a caveatable interest may arise only after suit for
enforcement of mutual Will is decreed and not prior thereto.
EPILOGUE
E
184. Before parting with this case we may notice some
disturbing features. Each party for good or bad reasons has
been opposing one or the other application filed by the other. It
is stated that respondent No.1 is opposing the application for
substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Mrs. Laxmi Devi F
Newar, sister of MPB. We do not know on what premise sucn a
stand is being taken. Counsel for both the parties put the blame
on the other side for causing delay in disposal of the matters.
185. We, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case, are of the opinion that the probate proceedings should G
be taken up for hearing by the High Court as expeditiously as
possible. We would request the High Court to consider this
- > aspect of the matter.
186. Probate proceedings may also be taken up for
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.

A hearing one after the other.
187. Probate proceeding of RSL in respect of Will of PDB
executed in the year 1999 should be taken up first. The hearing
of the probate proceeding of Will of MPB of 1982 may be taken
up immediately thereafter. Judgments may be delivered, if
B possible, at the same time. The suit filed by the executors of the
two 1982 Wills being Civil Suit No. 221 of 2004 may be taken
up for hearing only after the disposal of the probate proceedings,
if necessary.

c CONCLUSION
188. For the reasons aforementioned, Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP (C) No. 10176 of 2007 filed by RSL challenging
appointment of YB is allowed and all other appeals are
dismissed with costs.
D
189. Who would be the beneficiaries of the case? We think
that benefit should go to Legal Services Authority. We direct the
appellants in the appeal filed by Birlas should deposit a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lac fifty thousand only) with the
Member Secretary of West Bengal Legal Services Authority.
E Such deposit should be made within four weeks from today,
failing which the West Bengal Legal Services Authority would
be entitled to realize the amount by filing application for execution
wherefor cost would be borne by the appellants herein. Let a
copy of this order be sent by the Registry to Member-Secretary,
F West Bengal Legal Services Authority.
G.N. Civil Appeal Nos. 2277, 2274, 2276,
2279, 2275 of 2008 dismissed and
Civil Appeal 2278 of 2008 allowed.