Latest JudgementIndian Succession Act, 1925

State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others, 2025

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the strict scope of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act: it only applies in true cases of intestacy.

Supreme Court of India·16 September 2025
State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others, 2025
Indian Succession Act, 1925
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

16 September 2025

Judges

Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice S.C. Sharma

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri (Rajasthan) died in 1987, having executed a Will dated October 30, 1985.

  • The Will bequeathed his entire estate to a public charitable trust, “Khetri Trust.”

  • Despite the Will, the State of Rajasthan took possession of the estate, invoking the Rajasthan Escheats Act, claiming there were no heirs.

  • The State challenged the Will's validity before the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Will and granted probate based on evidence from attesting witnesses.

  • The State then approached the Supreme Court, arguing it had locus standi under the doctrine of escheat.

Issues

  1. Whether the State Government has locus standi to challenge a Will when probate has already been granted.

  2. When can the doctrine of escheat under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act be invoked?

  3. Whether a Will's probate can be challenged by the State or only by legal heirs under the Act.

Held

  • Section 29 does not apply in this case as the deceased had executed a valid Will and probate was granted.

  • The State is a stranger to probate and succession proceedings where testamentary succession is involved.

  • Only Class I or II heirs can challenge probate; the State cannot intervene until and unless there’s complete failure of heirs under intestate succession.

Analysis

  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed the strict scope of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act: it only applies in true cases of intestacy.

  • The State cannot act pre-emptively to claim property just because it suspects the absence of heirs.

  • The ruling emphasizes probate finality and limits State intervention, strengthening the sanctity of Wills and testamentary autonomy.

  • It clarifies the procedural safeguard under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act – only heirs with a legitimate claim under intestate succession may seek revocation of probate.

  • The ruling also limits misuse of escheat laws by state governments and protects the rights of private charitable trusts.