HSA | Dispute Resolution & Arbitration Monthly Update | October 2025

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors.

SLP (C) No(S). 14721 – 14723/2024

Introduction

• In a recent and significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the State Government cannot invoke the doctrine of escheat under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, once a Hindu male has executed a valid Will that has been probated by a competent court. This decision underscores the sanctity of testamentary succession and limits the role of the State in succession disputes.
• The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice S.C. Sharma, while hearing an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the probate granted to the Will of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri.

Background facts

• Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri, a resident of Rajasthan, passed away in 1987. Before his death, he executed a Will on October 30, 1985, bequeathing his estate to a public charitable trust named the Khetri Trust.
• Following his demise, the State of Rajasthan invoked the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956, and took possession of the entire estate, asserting that the properties had escheated to the Government. The State subsequently challenged the Will before the Delhi High Court.
• A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan upheld the validity of the Will in 2023, relying on the testimony of the attesting witnesses and granted probate in favour of the Trust.
• Aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court, arguing that it had the locus to contest the probate proceedings in light of its earlier possession of the estate and by relying on the precedent set in State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook.

Issue(s) at hand

• Whether the State Government has the locus standi to contest probate proceedings when a valid Will has been upheld by a competent court.
• Under what circumstances does Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (doctrine of escheat), come into operation?
• Can the State Government claim succession rights over the estate of a Hindu male when testamentary succession through a Will is already established?

Findings of the Court

• The Supreme Court emphatically rejected the State's arguments and clarified the scope of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act:
  1. Doctrine of Escheat under Section 29
     • Section 29 provides that where a Hindu dies intestate (i.e., without leaving behind a valid Will) and there are no heirs under Classes I or II as specified in Section 8 of the Act, the estate devolves upon the Government.
     • Thus, escheat is a doctrine of last resort, triggered only when there is a complete failure of heirs.
  2. Effect of Testamentary Succession
     • Where a valid Will exists and probate has been granted, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act relating to intestate succession do not apply. Instead, the Indian Succession Act governs such cases.
     • In such scenarios, the Government has no role to play, as the estate passes to the beneficiaries named in the Will.
  3. Government as a Stranger in Probate Matters
     • The Court held that the Government is a "stranger" to probate proceedings and cannot question the validity of a Will.
     • Probate, once granted by a competent court, can only be challenged by the likely heirs of the deceased, either through an appeal or by filing an application for revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
  4. Rejection of State's Reliance on Lord Northbrook
     • The State relied on State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook, where properties had devolved to the Government due to absence of heirs.
     • The Court distinguished this precedent, noting that in the present case, testamentary succession was in place through the Khetri Will, making escheat inapplicable.
  5. Case-Specific Determination
     • The Delhi High Court had already examined and upheld the validity of the Will.
     • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the estate must be managed as per the wishes of the testator through the Khetri Trust, the sole beneficiary under the Will.

Conclusion

• The judgment in the Khetri Trust matter sets a binding precedent by drawing a clear line between intestate succession (where escheat may apply) and testamentary succession (where the Will governs). It strengthens the jurisprudence on succession law in India, upholding both the autonomy of individuals in disposing of their property and the finality of probate orders granted by competent courts.
• For testators, heirs, and beneficiaries, this ruling provides much-needed certainty and ensures that private testamentary dispositions are insulated from unwarranted governmental claims.

HSA Viewpoint

This judgment is a landmark clarification of the law on escheat and succession. It settles the longstanding uncertainty over whether the Government can intervene in probate proceedings where a Will exists.

Key takeaways include:

Respect for Testamentary Freedom : The Court reinforced the principle that the wishes of a testator, when expressed through a valid Will, must prevail. The doctrine of escheat cannot be invoked to defeat testamentary freedom.

Checks on Government Intervention : By limiting the Government's role, the Court has safeguarded individuals and trusts from unwarranted claims by the State. This is particularly relevant in cases involving large estates, charitable trusts, or public assets.

Clarity on Locus : The decision clearly demarcates who may challenge probate, only the potential heirs of the deceased, not the State. This ensures that succession disputes remain private family or beneficiary matters.

Practical Implications : For estate planning, this ruling gives greater certainty to testators and beneficiaries, assuring them that validly executed and probated Wills will be protected from State interference.

In essence, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Government's right to claim property under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act arises only in the rare situation of intestacy coupled with complete absence of heirs. In all other cases, including those involving valid Wills, the State must remain a bystander.

Ashok Kumar Vs. Dulari Kapil

2025 SCC OnLine HP 4729

Background facts

• In this case, the landlord had purchased the shop from its previous owner, who had originally let it out to the tenant on a monthly rent with a specific condition that the tenant would not sub-let the premises or create a partnership.
• The landlord submitted that the tenant had since settled in Canada, and the shop, thereafter, came into the exclusive occupation of the sub-tenant.
• The tenant, however, denied the allegation of sub-letting. The sub-tenant also asserted that he was in occupation of the shop not as a sub-tenant, but as a direct tenant under the predecessorin-interest of the landlord, and had been paying rent to the previous owner. It was claimed that after the transfer of ownership, he continued as a tenant under the landlord.
• The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the sub-tenant, alleging that :
  • the premises were required for his bona fide personal use,
  • the tenant had unlawfully sub-let the premises to the sub-tenant.
• To support his case, the landlord examined multiple witnesses:
  • A witness from the office of SDO (Phones) BSNL deposed that Telephone No. 224431 had been installed in the name of Bagga and Company since August 31, 1982.
  • Another witness from the AETC testified that Bagga and Company was a partnership registered in the tenant's name in 1985, with no registration in the sub-tenant's name.
  • The Shop Inspector stated that the sub-tenant's name did not appear in his official records regarding the shop.
  • The son of the previous owner was also examined and testified that the sub-tenant had never been inducted as a tenant by the previous owner.
• The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition, but only on the ground of sub-letting. It concluded that the tenant had indeed sub-let the shop to the sub-tenant. The landlord's plea of personal bona fide requirement was rejected.
• The Appellate Authority affirmed the Rent Controller's order of eviction. The landlord did not challenge the rejection of the bona fide requirement ground and thus accepted that finding.
• Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of sub-letting, the sub-tenant filed the present revision petition.
• The landlord's counsel, however, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision petition, contending that under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act, only an "aggrieved party" could file a revision petition. Since the tenant who is the original party to the lease, had accepted the verdict and had not filed any appeal, it was argued that the sub-tenant could not be considered an aggrieved party entitled to maintain the revision.

Issue(s) at hand?

• Whether the sub-tenant, having been impleaded as a party to the eviction petition, could maintain a revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act despite the tenant not challenging the eviction order?

Findings of the Court

• The Court relying on, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh¹ , wherein the Supreme Court clarified that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is much narrower than appellate jurisdiction. A Revisional Court cannot re-appraise evidence or substitute its own view if the findings of the lower courts are possible and legally sustainable. Applying this principle, the Court observed that the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the issue of sub-letting could not be interfered with, as no perversity or illegality had been established by the sub-tenant.
• The Court then referred to Patel Valmik Himatlal v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai², where it was held that while exercising revisional powers, the High Court can correct only those errors which make the decision contrary to law or go to the root of the case. However, it is not empowered to rehear the matter or reassess the evidence. Applying this to the present case, the Court held that the sub-tenant's reliance on alleged rent receipts did not justify re-appreciation of evidence, particularly since the Rent Controller had already disbelieved them on valid grounds such as nonproduction of originals and inconsistencies in dates.
• The Court relied on Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak N. Joshi³, which emphasised that cases should not be dismissed merely on technical grounds of insufficiency of pleadings. The Court applied this principle to note that the landlord's eviction petition, filed in 2009 under the Rent Act of 1971, could not be treated as defective just because it did not clearly state that the sub-tenancy was created after the Act came into force and without the landlord's written consent. Since neither the tenant nor the sub-tenant had raised any objection about this at the earlier stag e, such a technical lapse could not make the eviction order invalid.
• Considering the above precedents and the facts of the matter, the Court held that the sub-tenant had failed to establish any tenancy directly under the previous landlord and that the eviction order against the tenant would bind the sub-tenant as well. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

Footnotes

1 (2014) 9 SCC 78

2 (1998)7 SCC 383

3 (1999)1 SCC 47

To view the full article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.