Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court, per Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, allowed the writ petition challenging the Trial Court’s orders permitting impleadment of a third party in a probate proceeding. The Court held that the Trial Court committed a clear jurisdictional error in allowing an impleading application filed by a person who admittedly had no relationship with the deceased testator and asserted only an adverse possession–based occupancy claim under land reforms legislation. The Court clarified that probate proceedings are governed by strict tests for determining caveatable interest, and only persons who claim succession or inheritance rights can oppose a Will.
The Court further held that a claimant asserting rights adverse to the testator cannot be permitted to come on record, as probate jurisdiction concerns only the validity of the Will and not the adjudication of competing title claims. It found that the Testator herself had opposed the third party’s tenancy claim during her lifetime, and therefore the third party’s presence in the probate case was wholly unwarranted. The High Court, therefore, set aside the orders allowing impleadment as well as the corrective order passed on a subsequent application and rejected both applications entirely.
Facts
The Petitioner initiated a probate proceeding before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking a grant of letters of administration concerning a Will executed by a deceased testator. After issuance of public notice, no objections were filed. The Petitioner examined herself as a witness and produced documentary evidence, and the matter proceeded to the stage of final orders. At this point, a third party filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment on the ground that he had filed a tenancy claim before the Land Tribunal with respect to a portion of the estate property.
The Petitioner opposed the application, submitting that the third party had no relationship with the deceased and that probate proceedings cannot be converted into a forum for adjudicating tenancy claims. Nevertheless, the Trial Court allowed the impleadment, and later allowed a correction application modifying its own order. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court under supervisory jurisdiction.
Issues
The central issues before the Karnataka High Court were:
- Whether a person claiming tenancy or occupancy rights under land reform legislation can be impleaded in a probate proceeding.
- Whether such a claimant possesses a “caveatable interest” that entitles them to oppose a Will.
- Whether the Trial Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing impleadment after evidence had concluded and the matter was reserved for orders.
- Whether the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 to set aside the Trial Court’s orders.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that probate jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the Will is genuine, duly executed and attested, and whether the Petitioner is entitled to letters of administration. The Petitioner submitted that the third party had no kinship with the deceased testator and could not claim succession. The tenancy claim pending before the Land Tribunal was entirely independent and adverse to the rights of the deceased.
The Petitioner contended that allowing impleadment would permit persons with no legal heirship to derail probate proceedings, contrary to settled principles. The Petitioner further submitted that the Will’s validity cannot be questioned by someone claiming a completely adverse title, especially when the Testator herself had opposed that person’s occupancy claim during her lifetime.
Respondent’s arguments
The opposing party argued that his tenancy application before the Land Tribunal involved one of the properties included in the Will. He claimed that if letters of administration were granted in favour of the Petitioner, she could alienate the property, prejudicing his pending occupancy claim. He submitted that impleadment was necessary to protect his interest and ensure that the probate proceedings do not adversely affect his tenancy rights. He therefore supported the Trial Court’s finding and asserted that he should be heard before any final orders are passed.
Analysis of the law
The Court analysed the statutory framework governing probate proceedings. It noted that probate jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to deciding disputes of title or tenancy. A probate court merely determines whether the document propounded as a Will is genuine. The concept of “caveatable interest” is well-settled: only persons who claim inheritance rights or would be entitled to succeed to the estate in the event of intestacy may challenge a Will.
The Court observed that a tenancy claimant asserting rights adverse to the deceased cannot be included within this definition. Such a claimant’s rights are governed by an entirely separate statutory mechanism under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Their occupancy claim does not depend on validity or invalidity of the Will. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in expanding the scope of probate proceedings and permitting a stranger to the line of succession to intervene.
Precedent analysis
While the judgment does not cite specific case names, it relies on established principles repeatedly affirmed by High Courts and the Supreme Court. The standard position in probate law is that persons with adverse claims—such as trespassers, tenants, competitors in title, or occupancy claimants—do not qualify as persons with caveatable interest. Courts have consistently held that probate proceedings cannot be converted into platforms for title adjudication. The judgment reinforces these precedents by reiterating that only persons who assert inheritance rights have locus to contest a Will.
Court’s reasoning
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty held that the Respondent admittedly had no right of inheritance. He did not claim to be a legal heir, nor did he belong to any class of successors who would benefit if the Will were invalidated. His only claim was an occupancy application that was still pending and which the Testator had opposed during her lifetime. This established that the Respondent’s claim was adverse, not derivative, and thus wholly incompatible with probate jurisdiction.
The Court distinguished between persons whose rights flow from the estate and those whose rights are asserted against the estate. Only the former can be heard in probate proceedings. Since the Respondent’s occupancy claim would continue irrespective of the Will’s validity, he lacked locus. Allowing impleadment at the penultimate stage—after evidence was recorded and arguments concluded—was held to be improper and prejudicial.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Trial Court’s orders allowing impleadment and the subsequent correction order, and rejected both applications. It held that the Respondent had no caveatable interest and could not be treated as a necessary or proper party. The judgment reaffirms the limited jurisdiction of probate courts and protects probate proceedings from unnecessary intrusion by parties asserting rights wholly outside the succession framework.
Implications
This judgment significantly clarifies the boundaries of probate litigation in Karnataka. It will prevent future attempts by tenants, occupancy claimants, and other adversarial parties from entering probate proceedings to stall or complicate administration of estates. It protects the sanctity of testamentary intention and ensures that probate courts remain focused on examining execution and validity of Wills. It also reassures legal heirs that adverse claimants cannot derail probate proceedings under the guise of impleadment. The ruling reinforces the importance of identifying caveatable interest before granting audience in probate matters.
