1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY T. & I. J. MISC. PETITION NO.41 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.885 OF 2005 Union of India. ...Petitioner. Versus Murarilal Nawalram Garodia & Anr. ...Respondents. ....... Mr. S.R. Rajguru with Mr. V.B. Tiwari for the Petitioner. Mr. Kevic Sethalvad with Mr. N.S. Patel for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. September 4, 2009. P.C.: In these proceedings which have been filed by the Union of India, revocation has been sought of a probate granted to the First and Second Respondents on 28th April 2006 in Testamentary Petition 885 of 2005. The second relief that is sought is for a direction to the First and Second Respondents to pay to the Union of India, the amount earned by the First Respondent from the salt works situated at Survey Nos.144 and 145 of Wadala. -2. The case of the Union of India is that the First and Second 2 Respondents obtained probate of a will dated 24th May 2000 of the deceased testatrix, Hilla Bhiwandiwala and the property known as Hormuz Salt Works, bearing Survey Nos.144 and 145 at Wadala was disclosed in Item 6 of the schedule to the Probate Petition. The only submission which has been urged by the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the title to the salt works in question, vests in the Union of India and it is on that basis, that a revocation has been sought. -3. In Krishna Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha,1 the Supreme Court held, reiterating the well settled principle in law, that the probate Court which exercises testamentary jurisdiction cannot adjudicate upon questions of title. Moreover, a person claiming interest adverse to the estate cannot maintain an application for probate. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the judgment read thus: “The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the will. A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone into the (sic probate) proceedings. Construction of a will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is 1 (2009) 4 SCC 300 3 beyond the domain of the Probate Court. ... Any person claiming any interest adverse to the testator or his estate cannot maintain any application before the Probate Court. His remedy would be elsewhere.” 3. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an order dated 6th July 2006 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr.Justice D.K. Deshmukh in Union of India vs. Faiyaz Ahmed Azamatullah Shaikh, Misc. Petition 28 of 2005 in Petition 87 of 2004) and it is submitted that in similar facts, the Court has disposed of the Petition of the Union of India with certain protective observations which read as follows: “The learned Counsel appearing for respondents states that the letter of administration granted by this Court and for the revocation of which this petition has been filed cannot come in the way of the Petitioners- Union of India to establish its title to the property in the suit that it filed by the Union of India. The statement is accepted. In view of this statement, it is not necessary to proceed further with this petition. Petition is disposed off.” The Learned Advocate submitted that this Court should issue a similar clarification. 4 4. From the reading of the order passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.K. Deshmukh, it would appear that in that case, a suit had already been filed by the Union of India. Consequently, this Court recorded the statement of the Respondent that grant of Letters of Administration would not come in the way of the Union of India in establishing its title. 5. The position in law is well established. The grant of Letters of Administration or for that matter, probate does not amount to an adjudication by the Court on the question of title. The Probate Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction is only concerned with determining whether the will is genuine or authentic. The question of title falls outside the domain of probate proceedings. In these circumstances, the grant of probate to the First and Second Respondents cannot either confer title on the First and Second Respondents or for that matter, divest the claim of title of the Union of India. In these circumstances, subject to the aforesaid clarification, the petition shall stand disposed of. .... 5