---
title: "Supreme Court Rules State Has No Locus in Probate: Valid Will Prevails Over Escheat Claims"
date: 2025-09-15
author: "Suresh Palav"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/real-estate/sc-rules-valid-will-overrides-states-escheat-claims/
---

# Supreme Court Rules State Has No Locus in Probate: Valid Will Prevails Over Escheat Claims

Posted On - 15 September, 2025 •

By - [Suresh Palav](https://www.indialaw.in/people/suresh-palav/ "Posts by Suresh Palav") and [Ritika Dedhia](https://www.indialaw.in/author/ritika-dedhia/ "Posts by Ritika Dedhia")

[![Supreme Court Rules State Has No Locus in Probate: Valid Will Prevails Over Escheat Claims](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/3e04d8f5-f16a-40da-a7d5-11f522897a47-1920x1280.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/3e04d8f5-f16a-40da-a7d5-11f522897a47-scaled.jpg)

## **Introduction**

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the supremacy of testamentary succession over State claims in its recent decision in State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Ors.[[1]](#_ftn1) (2025). The Court made it clear that the doctrine of escheat under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is a remedy of last resort it comes into play only when a person dies intestate and without any legal heirs. Where a valid Will is executed and duly probated, the property must devolve strictly in line with the testator’s intent, leaving no room for the State to assert rights over the estate. By rejecting Rajasthan’s challenge to the probate of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh’s Will, the Court reinforced both the sanctity of a valid Will and the limits of governmental intervention in succession matters.

## Table of Contents

## **Background of the Case**

The dispute traces back to the estate of **Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri**, who passed away in 1987 without leaving behind any direct heirs. Before his death, he executed a **Will on 30.10.1985** and a **Codicil on 7.11.1985**, creating the Khetri Trust to manage and administer his vast properties.

After his death, the trustees of the Khetri Trust sought probate of the Will before the Delhi High Court. However, the **Single Judge** dismissed the petition in 1987, noting that the **Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956** had already been invoked and the State of Rajasthan had taken possession of some of the properties, claiming they had escheated to the Government.

On appeal, the **Division Bench of the Delhi High Court** overturned the ruling upheld Will to be validly executed and proved in compliance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and granted probate in favor of the Khetri Trust.

Challenging this, the State of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court, contending that since the testator died without heirs, his properties stood escheated to the Government, giving the State the right to oppose the probate.

## **Legal Framework**

The dispute required the Court to examine the interaction between the **Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA)** and the **Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA)** in the context of testamentary and intestate succession.

- **Doctrine of Escheat (Section 29, HSA):** Property reverts to the State only when a person dies intestate and leaves behind **no heir** neither Class I nor Class II heirs, nor agnates or cognates. The Government inherits such property subject to all obligations and liabilities that would have bound a natural heir.
- **Hierarchy of Heirs (Sections 8 – 13, HSA):** Succession first flows to Class I heirs (such as spouse, children, and mother). If none exist, it moves to Class II heirs, followed by agnates and then cognates. Only in the total absence of such heirs does Section 29(escheat) apply.
- **Testamentary Succession (Section 30, HSA & Section 63, ISA):** A Hindu has full power to dispose of property by Will. For the Will to operate, it must be executed and proved in line with Section 63 of the ISA (formal requirements) and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (attestation by witnesses).
- **Challenge to Probate (Section 263, ISA):** Once probate is granted, it can be challenged only by persons who would inherit if the Will fails i.e., lawful heirs under the HSA. The State’s right to contest probate arises only when it is established that the deceased has left behind no legal heirs whatsoever.

## **Supreme Court’s Analysis**

The central question before the Court was whether the **State of Rajasthan** had the right to challenge the probate of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh’s Will. The State argued that since the testator died without heirs, his properties stood escheated to the Government, giving it locus standi to oppose probate.

The Court rejected this claim and clarified several important principles:

1. **Escheat as a Last Resort**
  1. As long as a valid Will exists, succession is testamentary, not intestate, and the doctrine of escheat is not triggered.
2. **Validity of the Will**
  1. With probate granted, the property devolved upon the Khetri Trust, the named legatee.
3. **State as a “Stranger” to Probate Proceedings**
  1. Even if the Will were disputed, only lawful heirs under Sections 8 to 13 of the Hindu Succession Act could seek revocation under Section 263 of the ISA not the State.
4. **Judgment**
  1. Accordingly, the Court **dismissed the petitions** filed by the State and affirmed the grant of probate in favor of the Khetri Trust, thereby ensuring that the intentions of the testator would be carried out through the Trust.

## **Significance of the Ruling**

1. **Clear Limits on Government Intervention** – The State cannot step into probate proceedings unless there is a proven absence of heirs and no valid Will. This curtails unnecessary governmental claims over private estates.
2. **Primacy of Testamentary Succession** – By upholding the probate of a duly executed Will, the Court reaffirmed that a testator’s wishes take precedence over escheat claims by the State.
3. **Guidance on Section 29, Hindu Succession Act** – The ruling clarifies that escheat is a last resort mechanism and not a parallel ground of succession when a valid Will exists.
4. **Protection of Trusts and Legatees** – Trusts and other beneficiaries created under a valid Will are safeguarded from State interference, ensuring that charitable or private intentions expressed by the testator are respected.
5. **Practical Clarity for Future Cases** – The decision sets a precedent for probate matters, making it clear that only rightful heirs under succession law, and not the State, can contest or seek revocation of probate.

## **Author’s View**

The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Ors. is both timely and necessary. By shutting the door on the State’s unwarranted intervention in probate matters, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that **escheat is an exception, not the rule**. The judgment strikes the right balance between protecting the sanctity of a testator’s intent and ensuring that State authority is exercised only in the rarest of cases when there is truly no heir and no testament.

Importantly, the decision also strengthens the legal position of trusts and legatees, which are often vulnerable to protracted litigation when governments attempt to claim private property. It sends a strong signal that once a Will has been duly proved, its beneficiaries should be allowed to carry out the testator’s wishes without interference.

In the larger scheme, this ruling enhances certainty in succession law, reassuring individuals that their estate planning will be respected, and discouraging opportunistic claims by the State.

**For more details, write to us at:**[**contact@indialaw.in**](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)

---

[[1]](#_ftnref1) SLP (C) Nos.14721-14723/2024

[Property & Real Estate Advisory](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/nri-legal-services/property-real-estate-advisory/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---