Justice Pitale noted that the explanation to Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925 opened with the phrase, “just cause shall be deemed to exist where…“, which was a departure from the words used in the corresponding provision of the earlier Indian Succession Act of 1865.
The earlier law used the phrase “just cause is…” to specifically define the phrase through four explanations, the judge observed.
On the other hand, the new Succession Act failed to discuss it in such specific terms and instead used a “deeming fiction” to indicate circumstances in which a just cause may arise, the Court found.
In light of this distinction and after perusing the judgments referred to by the parties, Justice Pitale agreed with the position of law laid down by the Madras High Court and Supreme Court (that the explanations under Section 263 of the Succession Act are only illustrative and not exhaustive).
He disagreed with the conflicting judgments of the High Court’s co-ordinate Benches.
Since he expressed such a disagreement with Benches of equal strength (coordinate/ other single-judge Benches), Justice Mitale concluded that the question now had to be settled authoritatively by a larger Bench of the High Court.
Accordingly, he requested the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice, who would assign a larger Bench to decide the question of law.
Justice Pitale also stayed the effect of the probate of the will granted to the respondent till the petition is finally heard and decided.
Source: Barandbench
