High Court Retains Plenary Power to Order Criminal Probe in Testamentary Suits: SC

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the High Court, as a Court of Record, possesses inherent and plenary powers to direct a criminal investigation into the siphoning of an estate, even while exercising testamentary jurisdiction. This ruling underscores that the Court is not a "silent spectator" when faced with deceitful conduct and blatant misappropriation of assets held in custodia legis.

In a significant judgment delivered by a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court to order a court-monitored investigation into the affairs of a deceased testator's estate. The Court clarified that while the primary role of a Probate Court is to determine the genuineness of a Will, it is not denuded of its constitutional powers under Constitution of India, 1950 to protect properties under its custody.

Court Affirms Plenary Jurisdiction over Estate Protection

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the 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 bench further noted that when an estate is brought under the protective umbrella of the Court through the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Court is duty-bound to ensure the estate is not plundered. Relying on M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., the Court emphasized that High Courts possess unlimited jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process unless expressly barred.

Directions Issued for Investigation

The Court has the following directions:

"...the competent investigation authority to proceed with the investigation expeditiously and submit the progress report as per the directions of the High Court."

Background: Rival Wills and Alleged Siphoning

The dispute originated from competing claims over the estate of Purvez Burjor Dalal, valued at over Rs. 100 Crores. Two rival Wills surfaced: one propounded by the respondents and another by Mr. Sukhadwalla, who claimed the estate was bequeathed to charity. During the proceedings, an Administrator was appointed under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The Administrator's inquiries revealed suspicious transfers of nearly Rs. 32 Lakhs to a private entity and the appellant Trust shortly after the testator's death. Further investigation suggested that the appellant Trust, which had been dormant since 1943, was revived in 2011 to facilitate the siphoning of funds. The High Court found the conduct of the propounder "obstructive" and "deceitful," leading to the order for a criminal complaint.

The appellants argued that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a self-contained code, citing Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., and that the High Court could not bypass Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 procedures. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, stating that Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not grant immunity for criminal breach of trust or forgery. The Court also relied on Pandurang Shamrao Laud v. Dwarkadas Kalliandas and Anthony C. Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan ( "(1996) 11 SCC 376, para 28": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 39) to establish that the Administrator is an "officer of the court" and the estate is in "custodia legis."

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 25107 of 2025)
Case Title: Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 469