Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court upheld the validity of the Will of Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri, holding that there had been due compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘IS Act’) and that the Will had been duly proved in accordance with Section 68 of the ‘Evidence Act, 1872, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that a State has no locus to challenge a Probate granted to a Will.
The Court further clarified that Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act (which allows for escheat of property to the Government) would apply only in the event of a failure of heirs upon intestate succession. Therefore, until such a situation arises, the Government remains a stranger to both probate proceedings and succession under personal law.
Background
The matter pertained to the Will of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri , who passed away in 1987, leaving behind a Will dated 30-10-1985, by which all his properties were bequeathed to a public charitable trust named Khetri Trust. Following his death, the State of Rajasthan initiated proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Act and took possession of the entire estate of the late Raja in 1987.
As many as 62 properties, including Khetri House (Jaipur), Bhopalgarh Fort, Khetri, Naya Mahal, and others, along with all movable assets, including historical artefacts, were taken over by the State. The High Court of Rajasthan later set aside the action taken under the Escheats Act. A Civil Appeal against this judgment remained pending before the Supreme Court of India.
Despite the historical and cultural significance of many of these properties, they were left to deteriorate, and the Supreme Court, in a civil appeal, passed various orders directing the constitution of a five-member committee to oversee the restoration of these properties at the cost of the State.
The State of Rajasthan also contested the validity of the Will before the Delhi High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed Testamentary Case, holding that it was for the State of Rajasthan to take a decision in accordance with law pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. The executors of the Will and trustees of the Khetri Trust preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In 2023, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court granted probate of the Will in favour of the executor, Lord Northbrook. The High Court upheld the validity of the Will of Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri, holding that there had been due compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and that the Will had been duly proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
By the impugned common judgment, the probate of the Will and Codicil of the testator, Sri Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh, was granted in their favour. It is against this common judgment that the State Government has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the locus standi of the State Government to challenge the order of the Division Bench of the High Court is a preliminary issue that requires consideration.
The Court clarified that the dismissal of Testamentary Case by the Single Judge, on the premise that proceedings had already been initiated under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956, did not imply the absence of a rightful owner of the testator’s properties. The Court emphasised that the mere initiation of escheat proceedings does not extinguish the rights of rightful claimants under the applicable personal law.
The Court further explained that if a Will fails, then the law of intestate succession, as per the personal law applicable to the testator, would come into operation. It is only in the event of a failure of legal heirs under the Act that Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply, under which the estate of the intestate would devolve upon the Government. However, the Government would take such property subject to all obligations and liabilities to which a lawful heir would have been subject.
After considering Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court observed that since the deceased testator was a male Hindu, the said provision would be applicable only if there was a failure of heirs upon intestacy. In such cases, the doctrine of escheat or bona vacantia would apply, and the property would devolve upon the State, albeit with the obligation to take the property subject to all liabilities and responsibilities of a rightful heir.
However, the Court made it clear that where a male Hindu dies leaving behind a valid Will, the provisions of the IS Act would govern succession. If the Will is probated or proved before a competent court, the legatees under the Will would rightfully succeed to the testator’s estate. Conversely, if the Will is declared invalid, and there is also a failure of heirs, then and only then would Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, be triggered, allowing the State to claim the estate under the doctrine of escheat.
The Court also referred to Sections 8 to 13 and the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, observing that in the event a competent court declares the Will of a Hindu to be invalid, and no heirs exist under Section 8, then Section 29 of the Act would come into play, as it would amount to a failure of heirs. In other words, if a Hindu’s Will is declared invalid and probate is not granted, the deceased would be considered to have died intestate, and the succession would proceed under the Hindu Succession Act. It would then need to be ascertained whether any Class I or Class II heirs, agnates, or cognates exist. Only in the absence of such heirs would Section 29 apply, and the estate would devolve upon the Government, triggering the doctrine of escheat.
However, in the present case, the Court noted that the probate of the testator’s Will was initially declined by the Single Judge but was subsequently granted by the Division Bench of the High Court. Thus, there has been a judicial pronouncement affirming the validity of the Will by a competent court of law.
As a result, the Court said that the legatees under the Will are entitled to succeed to the estate. In this case, the Khetri Trust has been named as the sole legatee under the Will, and therefore, it is the Trust that would succeed to the properties of the testator. The Court further emphasised that the Trust is bound to ensure that the intentions of the testator are fulfilled in accordance with the objectives outlined in the Trust deed.
The Court observed that the lis in State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook, (2021) 16 SCC 400 had been rendered entirely academic, in light of the fact that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had upheld the validity of the Will of Sri Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh and had granted probate. Accordingly, the legatees under the Will, namely the Khetri Trust, are now required to carry out the intentions of the testator, as an executor was also appointed under the Will.
The Court clarified that probate granted by a competent court can only be challenged by those persons who would be legal heirs in the event of the Will failing. Such challenge may be made either by filing an appeal or by seeking revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
It was further held that Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act (which allows for escheat of property to the Government) would apply only in the event of a failure of heirs upon intestate succession. Therefore, until such a situation arises, the Government remains a stranger to both probate proceedings and succession under personal law.
The Court unequivocally held that the mere initiation of proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956, by the State does not confer locus standi on the State to challenge the grant of probate. Accordingly, locus standi was treated as a preliminary issue in these Special Leave Petitions.
Upon consideration, the Court held that the State of Rajasthan had no locus standi to assail the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, as the case was one of testamentary succession. Since probate had been granted by a competent court, Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act was found to be inapplicable.
The Court further clarified that if probate is alleged to have been granted illegally (i.e., if the Will is not valid), then only those who would inherit under intestate succession (i.e., legal heirs under Section 8 of the Act) would have the right to seek revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. No one else, including the State, would have the right to do so.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that Section 29 applies only in cases of intestacy, and since that was not the situation in the present case, there was no scope for the State to step in under the doctrine of escheat.
[State of Rajasthan v Ajit Singh, SLP (C) No(S).14721-14723/2024, decided on 01-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.v. Raju, A.S.G.,Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.,Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G.,Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv.,Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv.,Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Adv.,Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR,Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR,Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.,Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv.,Mr. Aditi Vats, Adv.,Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv.,Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal, Adv.,Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Adv.,Mr. Pragya Seth, Adv.,Mr. Nakul Bansal, Adv.,Mr. Nanakey Kalra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.,Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv.,Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv.,Mr. Abhinabh Garg, Adv.,Ms. Niyati Kohli, Adv.,Ms. Abhinabh Garg, Adv.,Mr. Uday Aditya Jetley Pocha, Adv.,Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR,Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Prashant Mishra, Adv.,Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Adv.,Mr. Uday Aditya Jetley Pocha, Adv.,Mr. Aniket Sancheti, Adv.,Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv.,Ms. Chitra Y Parande, Adv.,Mr. Aditya Dev Triguna, Adv.,Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR
