Escheat: Supreme Court Clarifies Its Application – State of Rajasthan vs.
Ajit Singh (1 September 2025)
Introduction
This month’s article explores the intriguing concept of escheat, spotlighting a recent Supreme
Court judgment delivered on 1st September 2025 in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Ajit
Singh.
What Is Escheat?
Escheat refers to the process by which the government acquires ownership of property or
assets left behind by a person who dies intestate (without a will) and has no identifiable legal
heirs or beneficiaries. This legal framework ensures that property is never left ownerless—if
no eligible person claims it, the State will assume ownership after fulfilling the necessary
procedures.
Case Background
Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri executed a will on 30th October 1985 and a codicil on
7th November 1985, witnessed by two individuals. Pursuant to this will, the Khetri Trust was
created, with four appointed trustees. A testamentary case was filed in the Delhi High Court
seeking probate of both the will and codicil, while agnates (relatives exclusively from the
male lineage) objected to the probate being granted.
While proceedings were pending before a Single Judge, the State of Rajasthan invoked the
Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956, taking possession of certain properties. The Single
Judge dismissed Testamentary Case No. 26 of 1987, leaving the issue for the State to decide
as per law. The trustees appealed, and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court granted
probate of the will and codicil. Dissatisfied, the State of Rajasthan filed a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court.
Legal Principles and Statutory Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the application of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act,
which provides that in cases where a person dies intestate and without heirs qualified to
succeed, the property devolves upon the Government. Importantly, the Government inherits
the property subject to all associated obligations and liabilities an heir would bear.
For Section 29 to apply, two essential conditions must be fulfilled:
The deceased must not have left a will.
There must be no legal heirs eligible to inherit.
In this case, the existence of a will—duly proved before a competent court—meant these
conditions were not satisfied. Hence, Section 29 was not triggered.
The moment a will is made, proving its validity is governed by Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Intestate succession, by
contrast, is regulated by the personal law of the individual, such as the Hindu Succession Act
for Hindus.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Although the Single Judge initially declined probate, the Division Bench subsequently upheld
the will’s validity. As the will stood proven in court, the legatees (those named under the will)
were entitled to the property, leaving no room for State intervention.
The Supreme Court held, in paragraph 6.2 of its order, that the Government may only acquire
a Hindu’s estate under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act if there is a total failure of
heirs. Until this scenario arises, the Government is a stranger to probate or succession
proceedings under personal law.
Quoting the judgment:
“Merely because the State of Rajasthan had invoked the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act,
1956 would not give locus standi to assail the grant of probate of the will of the testator.”
Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan were dismissed on
this preliminary issue.
Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms that escheat as a principle comes into play only in the absolute
absence of both a will and qualified heirs. Where a will exists and is validly proved in court,
the legatees’ rights prevail, and the State has no claim.