Introduction:
In a significant ruling reaffirming the constitutional authority of High Courts in testamentary matters, the Supreme Court of India in Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 542, held that a High Court exercising probate jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not stripped of its plenary constitutional powers under Article 215 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that where serious irregularities, fraud, or attempts to dissipate estate assets are noticed during testamentary proceedings, the High Court is fully empowered to direct a criminal investigation in order to protect the estate and preserve the administration of justice.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale on May 25, 2026. The ruling arose out of a prolonged testamentary dispute involving the estate of late Purvez Burjor Dalal, a wealthy Mumbai-based Parsi businessman who died unmarried on December 7, 2011, leaving behind an estate allegedly worth more than ₹100 crores. Following his death, competing claims surfaced regarding the authenticity of two separate Wills purportedly executed by the deceased.
One Will dated November 22, 2010 was propounded by Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer and another executor, while another subsequent Will dated September 8, 2011 was propounded by Manek Dara Sukhadwalla. Sukhadwalla claimed that the deceased had bequeathed his entire estate for charitable purposes and had appointed him as the sole executor. Owing to the conflicting testamentary documents, proceedings were initiated before the Bombay High Court in its testamentary jurisdiction.
Considering the serious contest over the genuineness of the Wills and the need to preserve the estate during the pendency of the litigation, the Bombay High Court appointed an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The appointment of such an administrator is intended to ensure that the estate remains protected and properly managed until the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated.
During the course of administration, alarming financial transactions allegedly undertaken by Sukhadwalla and entities associated with him came to light. The Administrator pendente lite informed the High Court that shortly after the death of the testator, a bank account had been opened in the name of the “Estate of Purvez Burjor Dalal,” through which substantial sums of money were allegedly transferred to trusts and private entities. Transactions including transfers of ₹15 lakh to Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust and ₹17.08 lakh to another private entity were brought to the Court’s attention.
The Administrator alleged that the transactions formed part of a wider conspiracy involving diversion and siphoning of estate funds through interconnected entities allegedly linked to Sukhadwalla and one Jamsheed Minocher Panday. Suspicious circumstances including common addresses, overlapping financial dealings, and lack of transparency in the movement of funds raised serious concerns regarding the safety and integrity of the estate.
Taking note of the gravity of the allegations and the apparent non-cooperation of certain parties, the Bombay High Court directed a court-monitored criminal investigation into the matter. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court, where the appellants contended that the probate court lacked jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act to direct criminal investigation proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s ruling ultimately became an important exposition on the scope of probate jurisdiction, the powers of constitutional courts, and the duty of courts to safeguard estates placed under judicial protection.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants strongly challenged the Bombay High Court’s decision directing a criminal investigation. Their principal contention was that proceedings under the Indian Succession Act are limited in nature and primarily concern the adjudication of the validity, execution, and genuineness of a Will. According to the appellants, the probate court functions within a narrowly defined statutory framework and cannot assume powers beyond those specifically contemplated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The appellants argued that the Indian Succession Act constitutes a self-contained code governing testamentary disputes and estate administration. It was submitted that while the High Court may supervise the functioning of an Administrator pendente lite, the statute does not confer authority upon the probate court to initiate or direct criminal investigations. Such powers, according to the appellants, fall within the domain of ordinary criminal law machinery and investigative agencies acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appellants further contended that the High Court had effectively transformed testamentary proceedings into criminal proceedings, thereby exceeding the jurisdictional boundaries of probate law. They maintained that the allegations regarding diversion of funds, conspiracy, or financial impropriety could only be independently pursued before competent criminal forums and could not form the basis for directions issued within probate proceedings.
It was also argued that the impugned order directing investigation prejudiced the appellants and cast unwarranted suspicion upon them without any formal adjudication of guilt. The appellants maintained that the probate court’s role should remain confined to determining which Will represented the true testamentary intention of the deceased and not extend to policing alleged financial irregularities.
On the other hand, the respondents defended the Bombay High Court’s order by emphasizing the extraordinary circumstances revealed during the administration of the estate. It was argued that once the estate had been placed under the custody and protection of the Court through the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, the Court assumed a continuing obligation to preserve the estate from dissipation, misuse, and fraudulent diversion.
The respondents submitted that the suspicious transactions discovered by the Administrator were not isolated or accidental in nature. Rather, they allegedly demonstrated a concerted effort to siphon off estate funds through interconnected entities operating under questionable arrangements. The respondents highlighted that large sums had been transferred shortly after the death of the deceased, and the manner in which bank accounts were opened and operated raised serious concerns of fraud and breach of trust.
The respondents further contended that constitutional courts cannot remain passive spectators when evidence of deceit, manipulation, or abuse of judicial process comes to light. They argued that the High Court’s powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, which recognize High Courts as courts of record possessing inherent powers, remain available even when the Court exercises probate jurisdiction.
According to the respondents, the power to direct investigation was necessary to ensure that the estate was not plundered before the final adjudication of testamentary rights. It was argued that the probate court’s duty does not end merely with examining the validity of a Will; it must also ensure that the estate remains intact and protected throughout the pendency of the proceedings.
The respondents emphasized that the High Court had not convicted or declared any party guilty but had merely directed investigation into suspicious transactions uncovered during judicial administration of the estate. Such a direction, they argued, was both legally permissible and essential to maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Bombay High Court’s direction ordering a court-monitored criminal investigation. In a detailed and strongly worded judgment authored by Justice Prasanna B. Varale, the Court emphasized that constitutional courts cannot remain powerless when serious fraud or abuse of process is discovered during probate proceedings.
The Court began by examining the nature and scope of probate jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act. It acknowledged that the primary function of a probate court is indeed to determine the due execution and genuineness of a Will. However, the Bench clarified that such jurisdiction does not operate in isolation from the constitutional status and inherent powers of the High Court.
The Court categorically rejected the appellants’ argument that the Indian Succession Act creates a rigidly self-contained framework that excludes the exercise of constitutional authority. According to the Bench, while the Act regulates testamentary administration, it does not provide immunity against criminal conduct such as forgery, conspiracy, cheating, or criminal breach of trust.
The Court observed that once an Administrator pendente lite is appointed under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, the estate effectively comes under judicial custody, described in legal terminology as “in custodia legis.” This principle signifies that the property is under the protection and supervision of the Court itself. Consequently, the Court becomes duty-bound to preserve the estate and ensure that no party misappropriates or dissipates the assets pending adjudication.
The Bench stressed that courts cannot shut their eyes to glaring irregularities brought to their notice during administration of the estate. If credible material reveals attempts to siphon off estate funds, manipulate accounts, or frustrate the authority of the Administrator, the High Court possesses ample authority to intervene in order to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court specifically approved the Bombay High Court’s reliance upon Article 215 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that High Courts, being courts of record, possess inherent and plenary powers necessary to uphold the administration of justice and protect proceedings before them. These powers are not extinguished merely because the Court is exercising a particular statutory jurisdiction such as probate jurisdiction.
The Bench observed:
“…a primary function of the Probate Court is to adjudicate the execution and genuineness of the Will but while doing so if the High Court notices glaring irregularities or there is an element of mischief played by an executor noticed by the High Court then in that situation the High Court cannot be a silent spectator and will have to exercise its plenary and constitutional power to check the mischief so as to protect the property.”
The Court also emphasized the practical necessity of the impugned directions. It noted that the allegations involved suppression of bank accounts, diversion of estate assets, and use of shell entities allegedly connected to persons claiming rights under the disputed Will. Such conduct, if left unchecked, could irreversibly damage the estate and frustrate the very purpose of judicial administration.
Importantly, the Court clarified that directing an investigation does not amount to prejudging criminal liability. The High Court had merely sought an impartial investigation into suspicious financial transactions. The object of such an investigation was to uncover the truth and ensure protection of the estate rather than to pronounce guilt.
The Supreme Court further remarked that the conduct of the appellants and associated entities revealed “a concerted, deceitful effort” to frustrate the Administrator’s mandate and dissipate estate assets. In such circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in refusing to remain a “mute spectator” to the abuse of process.
The Court’s observations strongly underscored the judiciary’s role in preserving public confidence in the administration of justice. The Bench noted that judicial proceedings involving estates worth enormous sums of money cannot be allowed to become instruments of fraud or manipulation. Courts are duty-bound to intervene whenever judicial processes are exploited to facilitate unlawful diversion of property.
The judgment also carries wider implications for probate jurisprudence in India. It reinforces the principle that probate courts are not mechanically confined to examining testamentary formalities but possess broader powers to safeguard estates placed under judicial protection. The ruling establishes that constitutional powers and inherent judicial authority continue to coexist alongside statutory probate jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Bombay High Court’s order directing a court-monitored investigation into the alleged financial irregularities concerning the estate of late Purvez Burjor Dalal. The decision stands as a significant precedent affirming the proactive role of constitutional courts in preventing misuse of judicial proceedings and protecting estate assets from fraudulent dissipation.