Probate and Missing Wills: Supreme Court Dismisses Claim Over 1972 Estate Distribution
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of A. Wilson Prince vs. The Nazar & Ors., addressed a long-standing legal dispute concerning a missing Will and the probate granted in 1972. The case revolved around the efforts of the petitioner to obtain a copy of a Will executed by Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport, a property owner who passed away in 1972. The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, citing the destruction of records and the lack of substantive evidence to support the petitioner’s claim.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated when the petitioner, A. Wilson Prince, sought access to records related to the probate of a Will executed by Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport, who died on January 24, 1972, in Udhagamandalam (Ooty). The deceased had executed a Will on July 19, 1969, appointing M/s King and Partridge as the executor. The executor applied for probate under Sections 222(1) and 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The probate petition, numbered O.P. No. 15 of 1972, was allowed by the Sub Court, Ooty, on July 29, 1972. The executor filed an inventory on January 20, 1973, and submitted final accounts on July 9, 1973, thereby concluding the probate proceedings.
Legal Dispute and Writ Petition
More than four decades later, on January 30, 2016, a woman named Mary Brigit (since deceased) applied for a copy of the probate of the Will. When she did not receive a response, she filed Writ Petition No. 11266 of 2018, seeking a direction to furnish the probate copy.
In response, the executor firm, M/s King and Partridge, stated that they had no records of the case as their senior partner, who had handled the matter, retired in 1987 and passed away in 1988. A counter-affidavit filed by the district court confirmed that all records related to O.P. No. 15 of 1972 had been destroyed in 1998 in accordance with the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
After Mary Brigit’s death, her legal heirs, including the petitioner, were impleaded in the writ proceedings. The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the records had been destroyed, no relief could be granted.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, A. Wilson Prince, argued that:
- The Will should have been preserved and could not have been destroyed under the Destruction of Records Act.
- The probate proceedings involved a large estate, and it was unlikely that the original Will had been lost.
- A thorough inquiry, including a vigilance investigation, could reveal the whereabouts of the Will.
- The High Court erred in dismissing the petition without directing further investigation.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents, including the executor’s firm and the district court, countered that:
- All records had been lawfully destroyed in 1998 as per procedure.
- It was unclear whether the original Will had been returned to the executor or retained in court.
- The probate had been granted in 1972, and the estate had been settled decades ago.
- The petitioner’s claim was based on speculation without any supporting documents.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Destruction of Probate Records
The Court observed that while Wills in probate proceedings are generally preserved, the destruction of records in 1998 made it impossible to ascertain whether the original Will was still in existence.
Lack of Evidence for Petitioner’s Claim
The Court noted that the petitioner had never seen the Will and was relying on a diary entry allegedly maintained by his deceased father. It ruled that claims based on speculation could not be the basis for judicial intervention.
Executor’s Role and Compliance
The Court found that the executor had complied with all legal requirements by obtaining probate, filing inventories, and submitting final accounts in 1973. There was no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that:
- The destruction of records in 1998 was carried out as per legal procedures.
- The petitioner’s claim was speculative and unsupported by evidence.
- The High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition.
- The Special Leave Petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
Key Takeaways
- Preservation of Wills: Probate Wills should ideally be preserved, but their destruction does not automatically imply wrongdoing.
- Judicial Review of Record Destruction: Courts will not reopen cases based on speculative claims decades after probate is granted.
- Executor’s Duties: An executor’s role ends once probate is obtained and the estate is distributed as per the Will.
- Limitations of Judicial Intervention: The Court will not direct inquiries based on unverified claims without substantial evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that legal claims must be backed by substantive evidence. In cases where records are lawfully destroyed, courts will not entertain petitions based on speculation. This judgment provides clarity on the finality of probate proceedings and the limitations of judicial review in testamentary matters.
Petitioner Name: A. Wilson Prince.Respondent Name: The Nazar & Ors..Judgment By: Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Justice Pankaj Mithal.Place Of Incident: Udhagamandalam (Ooty).Judgment Date: 15-05-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: a.-wilson-prince-vs-the-nazar-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-05-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
