Marion Crasto v. Marina Manuel Fernandes
- By Kanishka Singh
- Judgment Analysis
Miscellaneous Petition No. 118 of 2021
in Testamentary Petition No. 650 of 2016
Bombay High Court (Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction)
Date: 11 December 2025
Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
ISSUE-
Whether the probate granted on 16 November 2017 was liable to be revoked under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
Whether failure to cite and notify a legal heir (first cousin of the deceased) amounts to “just cause” for revocation of probate?
Whether a probate obtained by making false statements or by concealing material facts from the Court is liable to be cancelled, even if the concealment was allegedly due to ignorance?
Whether a caretaker, claiming lack of knowledge of legal heirs, is under a duty to make a truthful disclosure of such ignorance in the testamentary petition?
RULE-
Statutory Provision
Section 263, Indian Succession Act, 1925
Section 263 allows the Court to revoke or annul a grant of probate for “good cause.”
Explanation to Section 263 provides that just cause shall be deemed to exist where:
The grant was fraudulently acquired.
By framing a false suggestion, or
By hiding from the Court something material to the case.
Illustration (ii) to Section 263
A grant can also be revoked when it was made without citing the parties who ought to have been cited.
ANALYSIS
In the case of this Bombay High Court judgement, it can be found that there was an in-depth assessment of facts by the Bombay High Court for violation of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925. It must be noted that it was correct to focus specifically on whether there was “just cause” for obtaining the grant of probate itself in 2017 with respect to misrepresentations of facts and misstatement of facts. It must be accepted that it was sufficient for the Petitioner to establish that she was indeed a legal heir based upon an understanding of the family genealogy and more importantly, based upon understandings contained within the earlier testament of 1984 filed by the deceased herself, where it was clearly indicated that Petitioner was indeed a legal heir.
The Court properly disallowed the Respondent’s defense that she was only a caretaker and lacked knowledge of the deceased’s relatives. The Respondent was obligated to admit her lack of knowledge of the legal heirs of the deceased. The Respondent had no knowledge of who the legal heirs of the deceased were, and instead of admitting that fact to the Court, she made closed and false statements that there were no relatives of the deceased. The Respondent made it appear that there were no parents, siblings, or other relatives of the deceased, and her admission was properly held by the Court to amount to fraudulent concealment of material facts.
Moreover, the Court rightly relies on Illustration (ii) under the Explanation of Section 263, stating that the lack of citation to the legal heir is, per se, sufficient to annul the probate. The probate being an in rem decree, with universal application, namely, applying to the entire world, not following the requisite formalities, including notice to all parties, is de jure. The lack of notice renders the very basis for the grant null and void. The rationale indicated in this decision highlights that the jurisdiction exercised in matters of wills must involve utmost good faith on the part of the party applying for probate.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the approach utilized by the Court is well-principled and statutory-provision compliant. In revoking the probate, it is apparent that the Court was upholding the interests of the legal heirs of the estate, while also upholding the sanctity of probate. Indeed, it is discernible that a strong precedent is set by requiring none to succeed by misrepresentation, omission, or sloppy pleading, whether negligently or intentionally.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court rightly exercised its powers under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in revoking the probate granted in favour of the Respondent. The Court correctly held that the grant of probate was obtained by suppression of material facts and by making false statements regarding the existence of legal heirs of the deceased. The failure to cite and notify the Petitioner, who was a lawful heir, struck at the very root of the probate proceedings, which require utmost good faith and complete disclosure. The judgment reinforces the settled principle that probate proceedings are proceedings in rem and any fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment vitiates the grant itself. By holding that even alleged ignorance of legal heirs is no excuse for making untrue statements before the Court, the decision upholds the integrity of testamentary jurisdiction and ensures fairness to all rightful heirs.
Yes, I agree with the judgment that has been passed, as the Court has applied the law correctly, protected the rights of legal heirs, and sent a strong message that abuse of probate proceedings and lack of candour before the Court will not be tolerated.