Supreme Court: State Cannot Invoke Doctrine Of Escheat To Challenge A Will Which Is Granted Probate

6.2. The grant of probate by a competent court of law can be assailed only by those who are the likely heirs if the Will is to fail, by either filing an appeal against it or by seeking revocation of the grant of probate under Section 263 of the IS Act, 1925. Further, it is only when there is failure of heirs that the estate of an intestate Hindu would devolve on the Government under Section 29 of the Act. This means that till that stage arrives, the Government is a stranger to the probate proceedings as well as any proceeding regarding succession under the personal law. Merely because the State of Rajasthan in the instant case has invoked the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956, would not give locus standi to assail the grant of probate of the Will of the testator. Hence, we have considered the locus standi of the State of Rajasthan to file these special leave petitions as a preliminary issue in these Special Leave Petitions.

6.3. In view of the above, we find that the State of Rajasthan in the instant case has no locus standi to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court on the strength of the escheat of the properties of the testator. Section 29 of the Act does not apply in the instant case as this is not a case of intestate succession but one of testamentary succession as probate of the Will has been granted by High Court.

6.4. We may also mention that in the event the probate has been granted illegally to the legatees of a Will inasmuch as the Will itself is not a valid Will, then under Section 263 of the IS Act only the persons who could have succeeded, by the Will being declared invalid namely, the successors under the Act, as per Section 8 thereof could have filed an application under Section 263 of the IS Act for revocation of the grant of probate and none else.

6.5. In other words, we clarify that it is only in the event of intestate succession, Section 29 of the Act applying that there would be a devolution of the estate of a deceased male Hindu on the Government and not otherwise. Since such a situation does not arise in the instant case, as probate of the Will of testator has been granted by a competent Court of law; this is a case of testamentary succession.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)

SLP (C) No(s). 14721-14723/2024

State of Rajasthan Vs  Ajit Singh and Others 

Decided on September 1, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1992

Print Page

Supreme Court: Registered Will Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Burden Of Proof On Party Disputing Its Validity

The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be Defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the Defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5921 of 2015 and 5922 of 2015 +

Decided On: 21.07.2025

Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Ors. Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by L.Rs

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 879,MANU/SC/0956/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are parameters for deciding anticipatory bail application under Prevention of Corruption Act for attempt to obtain bribe?

 Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence Under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms. {Para 12}

It is urged on his behalf that the facts found do not constitute an attempt to obtain the dusturi. With this argument we are unable to agree. It appears to us that the attempt was complete when the demand was made; there was nothing further for the Petitioner to do to complete his attempt. He made the request, and it lay with the person from whom he demanded the money to comply with the request or not. We are in complete agreement with the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Pearson in Empress of India v. Baldeo Sahai [  MANU/UP/0035/1879 : (1879) I.L.R. 2 All 253] where that learned Judge lays down that to ask for a bribe is an attempt to obtain one.

21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the Petitioner Accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025 +

Decided On: 03.03.2025

Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation: 2025 INSC 320, MANU/SC/0309/2025

Print Page

A Policy Analysis of the Witness Protection Scheme 2018-explainer

 

1. The Witness as the "Eyes and Ears of Justice"

In the architecture of the Indian adversarial legal system, the witness serves as the fundamental pivot upon which the scales of justice balance. The integrity of oral testimony is not merely a procedural convenience; it is the primary strategic asset for any court engaged in the arduous process of uncovering factual truth. Within this framework, the witness acts as the medium through which facts—disputed or otherwise—are effectively conveyed to the judiciary, forming the backbone of the decision-making process.

Print Page