Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the caveat against grant of probate could be sustained merely on the ground that certain assets were not disclosed in the affidavit-of-assets, where the caveator did not dispute the testator's testamentary capacity, the execution of the Will, or assert any interest in the omitted assets.
Analysis: Rule 24 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules permits a caveat to oppose grant of probate, and Rule 25 requires the caveator to disclose the right and interest and the grounds of objection. The objection raised here was confined to omission of some assets from the affidavit-of-assets, but the caveator claimed no interest in those assets and did not challenge the Will or the testator's capacity. In probate proceedings the Court is concerned with testamentary capacity and due execution of the Will, and it cannot decide questions of title. Non-disclosure of every asset does not, by itself, defeat probate where no legally cognizable ground of opposition is shown. The reference to Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act did not assist the caveator on these facts.
Conclusion: The caveat was not maintainable and was discharged.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with rejection of the caveat, as the objections raised did not disclose any sustainable ground to resist probate.
Ratio Decidendi: A caveat to probate can survive only if the caveator shows a genuine interest and a legally relevant ground opposing probate; mere omission of assets from the affidavit, without challenge to testamentary capacity, due execution, or title-related interest, is insufficient.