Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the scope of the doctrine of escheat under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while adjudicating the dispute surrounding the estate of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri, who passed away in 1987. The case, State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others [SLP (C) Nos.14721-14723/2024; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 906], revolved around whether the State Government could invoke the principle of escheat when a Hindu male had already executed a valid Will, which was later granted probate by a competent court. The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice S.C. Sharma decisively held that the State Government has no locus standi to intervene in probate proceedings or succession matters when testamentary succession exists through a Will. The Court made it clear that the doctrine of escheat comes into play only in cases of intestate succession where no heirs exist under Class I or II of the Hindu Succession Act.

The dispute originated after Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri executed a Will dated October 30, 1985, bequeathing all his properties to a public charitable body named Khetri Trust. Following his death in 1987, the State of Rajasthan, invoking the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956, took possession of the estate, contending that the Raja had died heirless and intestate. The Will, however, was contested and subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court, which granted probate in favor of the trust, relying on the testimony of attesting witnesses. Dissatisfied, the State of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court, arguing its right to claim the estate under the doctrine of escheat.

Arguments on Behalf of the State of Rajasthan:

Appearing for the State of Rajasthan, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju contended that the State Government had a locus standi in the matter. He invoked the precedent of State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook, where properties of a testator were taken over by the State on account of escheat since no legal heirs or beneficiaries existed. The ASG emphasized that the State’s intervention was justified in the present matter as well, since it concerned the very same properties once dealt with in Lord Northbrook’s case. According to the State, the very invocation of the Rajasthan Escheats Act gave it the power to challenge the validity of the Will and contest probate. The argument essentially rested on the premise that since the deceased left no identifiable heirs, the State was entitled to step into the shoes of a beneficiary under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The State also suggested that the probate granted by the High Court could not prevent the State from questioning the Will, as the property in dispute historically vested in the State under escheat regulations. Thus, Rajasthan sought the annulment of the probate granted to the Khetri Trust and reaffirmation of its possession over the estate.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:

On the other side, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Meenakshi Arora, representing the respondents including the Khetri Trust, vehemently opposed the maintainability of the State’s petition. They argued that the State had no locus standi to challenge probate granted to a Will. Under the framework of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, only legal heirs or those with a direct claim to the estate could question probate proceedings, not the government. The respondents underscored that since Raja Bahadur had executed a valid Will, which had been judicially recognized and granted probate, this amounted to testamentary succession, leaving no scope for the State to invoke escheat.

The counsel further argued that Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only in cases of intestate succession, i.e., when a Hindu male dies without leaving behind a Will and without heirs under Classes I and II. Since the Raja had clearly executed a Will in favor of the trust, the matter fell outside the purview of Section 29. The respondents highlighted that allowing the State to intervene in testamentary matters would undermine the sanctity of probate proceedings and the very intention of the deceased testator.

Court’s Judgment:

1. After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court categorically rejected the State’s contentions and upheld the validity of the probate granted to the Will of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh. The Court made several critical observations:
2. Doctrine of Escheat Under Section 29 of Hindu Succession Act: The bench clarified that Section 29 applies only in cases where a Hindu dies intestate, without any heirs under Class I and II, agnates, or cognates. Only in such circumstances can the property devolve upon the Government.
3. Role of a Valid Will: The Court emphasized that once a Will is executed by a Hindu male and is proved to be valid with probate granted, succession is governed by the Indian Succession Act and not by intestacy laws under the Hindu Succession Act. Thus, testamentary succession displaces the possibility of escheat.
4. Government as a Stranger to Probate Proceedings: The Court observed that the Government has no role or standing in probate matters. The grant of probate can only be contested by likely heirs who would benefit if the Will were to be invalidated. The State, being a stranger, cannot step in unless the situation of heirless intestacy arises.
5. Revocation of Probate: The Court clarified that even in cases where probate is wrongly granted to an invalid Will, it is only the legal heirs (who would otherwise inherit under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act) who may seek revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. The State cannot do so.
6. Application to Present Case: Applying these principles, the Court held that since the Delhi High Court had already validated the Will and granted probate in favor of the Khetri Trust, the matter was conclusively one of testamentary succession. The invocation of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act did not confer any standing on the State to assail the probate.

The Court’s conclusion was unequivocal:

“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. Merely because the State of Rajasthan 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.”

Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the estate of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh must devolve as per his wishes expressed in the Will, with the Khetri Trust as the lawful beneficiary.

Broader Implications of the Judgment:

This ruling is a significant precedent in succession law and government powers under escheat. By affirming that the State has no locus in testamentary succession, the Court has reinforced the sanctity of a testator’s last wishes and the importance of probate proceedings. It draws a clear distinction between intestate succession (where escheat may apply) and testamentary succession (where the Will governs distribution of assets).

The decision also curtails arbitrary claims by State Governments over properties bequeathed through valid Wills, thereby providing security to charitable trusts, institutions, and private beneficiaries designated in Wills. It preserves individual autonomy in disposing of property after death and ensures that the government cannot override a deceased person’s testamentary intent unless intestacy genuinely occurs.

For legal practitioners, the judgment underscores the limited scope of Section 29, clarifying that the State becomes relevant only at the final stage of heirless intestacy. Until then, succession disputes remain within the private domain of heirs and legatees.