Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 24-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: M/s. Alliance Projects, located at Plot No.(A) Door No.36/1 Gandhi Mandapam Salai Kotturpuram Chennai 85.
  • Respondents: 1) Mr. P. Ramamoorthy, 2) Mrs. N. Prema (W/o Late P. Nayagam), 3) Mrs. Vijayalakshmi (W/o Murugan, D/o Late P. Nayagam), 4) Mrs. Chitra (W/o Vijayakumar, D/o Late P. Nayagam), 5) Mr. N. Sathish (S/o Late P. Nayagam) – all residing at 1/15 Middle St, Near Saliar Elementary School, Samusikapuram, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar Dt – 626 117.
  • Petition (A No. 1060 of 2016 in O.P. No. 583 of 2009) sought revocation of the probate order dated 26‑11‑2010 that granted probate of the Will dated 05‑04‑2006 executed by the late P. Nayagam, specifically concerning Survey No.590 (37 cents) and Survey No.591 (58 cents), total 95 cents, in Korattur Village.
  • Background: Alliance Projects claims to have purchased the 37‑cent parcel in Survey No.590 and the 58‑cent parcel in Survey No.591 on 05‑09‑2005, registration 06‑09‑2005, Document No.3561 of 2005, Sub‑Registrar, Villivakkam, and has been in possession and has developed the land.
  • The applicant became aware of the probate when a notice was affixed at its construction site on 23‑04‑2014 regarding O.S. No.45 of 2014 before the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, where trustees of Inpros Charitable Trust sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for sale of properties allegedly devolved on P. Nayagam, including the disputed surveys.
  • The applicant alleges that the title of the testator (P. Nayagam) and his predecessor (Sadhu Kenghiah Swamigal) to the disputed lands is unclear, that the inclusion of the lands in the 2006 Will was erroneous or fraudulent, and that no notice was served on the applicant during probate.
  • Respondent 1 (P. Ramamoorthy), executor of O.P. No.583 of 2009, counters that the lands originally belonged to Sadhu Gangaiah Swamigal, who bequeathed them to P. Nayagam by a registered Will dated 08‑12‑1993 (Document No.114 of 1993, Joint Sub‑Registrar, George Town, Chennai). After Swamigal’s death, P. Nayagam possessed the lands as absolute owner.
  • P. Nayagam died on 20‑10‑2007, leaving the Will dated 05‑04‑2006, under which Ramamoorthy was appointed executor. Probate was granted on 26‑11‑2010 after compliance with testamentary formalities. Respondents 2‑5 are legal heirs of P. Nayagam.
  • The respondent argues that the applicant, not being a blood relative or beneficiary, has no caveatable interest and that any dispute over title must be pursued via a civil suit, not probate revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
  • Counsel for the applicant relied on precedents (Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, (1990) 3 SCC 333; E. Sankaran v. Krishnaveni, 2011 (5) CTC 117) asserting that lack of caveatable interest is not an absolute bar to invoking Section 263, and cited O.S.A.No.287 of 2011 (dismissed O.P. No.775 of 2008) to argue concealment of material facts regarding the earlier 1993 Will.
  • Respondent counsel cited cases (P.G. Gopal v. V. Manickavelu, 2003 (4) CTC 257; Velayudham v. S. Ponnambalam, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 928) stating that probate confirms the testamentary instrument and executor’s character but does not adjudicate title to the bequeathed property.
  • The Court examined the scope of testamentary jurisdiction, noting that probate courts assess the validity of the Will, testamentary capacity, and execution, not the testator’s title to specific properties.
  • The Court held that a probate grant cannot be partially revoked on the ground that the testator lacked title to particular properties; such disputes must be decided by a competent civil court.
  • The applicant failed to establish ‘just cause’ under Explanation (b) to Section 263, as there was no allegation of fraud, concealment of material fact, or false suggestion affecting the grant, and the relief sought was limited to two parcels only.
  • The Court distinguished the cited authorities, emphasizing that in Elizabeth Antony the applicant had a derivative interest through the testatrix’s daughter, and in E. Sankaran the issue involved non‑service of citation to interested parties, not an adverse title claim.
  • The Supreme Court decision in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) was also cited, reaffirming limited probate jurisdiction and the requirement of a caveatable interest for revocation applications.
  • Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant’s claim is an adverse title claim, not a caveatable interest, and therefore cannot be the basis for revocation of probate.

Final Outcome

  • The application for revocation of the probate dated 26‑11‑2010, insofar as it relates to Survey Nos.590 and 591, is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The applicant retains the right to pursue an independent title claim to the disputed parcels before the competent civil court.
  • The order is dated 24‑09‑2026 and signed by Justice A.D. Maria Clete.

Topics: Probate Revocation, Succession Law, Civil Title Dispute