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: Basic concept of Escheat under Hindu succession Act

 Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been invoked by the Collector. Section 29 provides as follows:

29. Failure of heirs-if an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.

Section 29 embodies the principle of escheat. The doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on government. Though the property devolves on government in such an eventuality, yet the government takes it subject to all its obligations and liabilities. The state in other words does not take the property "as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country", as held in State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh MANU/SC/0737/1991 : (1992) Suppl (3) SCC 108. This principle from Halsbury's Laws of England2 was adopted by this Court while explaining the ambit of Section 29. Section 29 comes into operation only on there being a failure of heirs. Failure means a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. When a question of escheat arises, the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate of the individual who has died intestate to establish the case. The law does not readily accept such a consequence. In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh MANU/SC/0303/1983 : (1983) 3 SCC 118, a Bench of three Judges of this Court formulated the principle in the following observations:

272. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the Appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the Respondent anywhere in the world. Normally, the court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the plea of escheat can be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the State. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2009

Decided On: 22.09.2017

 Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust

Vs. Collector, Haridwar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 16 SCC 418

Print Page

What are right of occupant of land under Bombay Regulation Act?

Apart from these defects in the procedure preceding the order passed by the District Judge, I find that the District Judge who passed the impugned order as well as both the Courts in this case have ignored the proper principles of Hindu Law applicable to the case. Waman Raghunath being a Hindu dying without any known heirs or presumed to be dead without leaving any known heirs, defendant No. 1, the State of Maharashtra, would undoubtedly take his properties by escheat under the rules of the Hindu Law as they existed prior to the Hindu Succession Act if he died before June 17, 1956. If he died thereafter, the Government would take the property under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act which is as under :-- 29: "If an intestate has left no heir, heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government, and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have become subject".

The heirs would in the present case take subject to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 whatever be the date of death of Waman because the plaintiffs are now held to be in possession of the said lands continuously as tenants of the said lands. These aspects are not at all considered by the District Judge when ordering the administrator to take possession of the said lands. The right of the Government under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act or under the general law prior to the Hindu Succession Act is not higher than that of an heir who can inherit the estate, sub-

ject to the liabilities and obligations of the heirs.

Bombay High Court

Kacharu Baban Kothawale And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 11 February, 1969

Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 Bom 205, (1969) 71 BOMLR 663, ILR 1970 Bom 374

Bench: Vaidya

Print Page