The Supreme Court has held that since the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe any limitation period either for seeking probate of a Will or for filing an application to revoke a probate already granted, such proceedings would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year limitation period for applications where no specific period is prescribed.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Dhiraj Dutta and holding that an application moved in 2022 for revocation of a probate granted in 1995 was barred by limitation.

"The ISA does not provide any limitation for grant of probate or to move an application for the revocation thereof and as such recourse must be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963," the Court observed.

The Court, in the facts of the case, held that party who is deemed to have constructive notice of mutation proceedings arising from a probate cannot subsequently challenge the probate on the ground of lack of awareness.

Background

The dispute concerned properties inherited by Gouriprova Sen from her husband. Before her death in October 1989, she executed a Will dated July 9, 1989, appointing her nephew Dhiraj Dutta as the sole executor and beneficiary. Probate of the Will was granted in September 1995.

Subsequently, Dutta initiated proceedings for mutation of revenue records. According to him, notices in those proceedings were served on the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents in 2013. The respondents, however, claimed that they became aware of the probate only in 2019 and thereafter filed a suit concerning the property. In 2022, they moved an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking revocation of the probate.

While a Single Judge dismissed the revocation application as time-barred, the Division Bench held otherwise, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the Division Bench's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol found the Respondent's plea for revocation of the probate to be barred by limitation. The Court questioned the Respondent's ignorance over the couple of years, despite having the constructive notice about the initiation of the mutation proceedings by the Appellant on account of grant of a probate. The Court said that it was expected of the Respondent to at least enquire about why the notice was sent to them and what they need to do in this regard.

“If a Court of law has sent someone a notice, the least that can be accepted is for them to make attempts to find out why the same may have been sent to them and what they would be required to do in regard thereto.”, the Court observed.

The Court was unconvinced with the Respondent's plea that the three-year limitation period for filing an application seeking a revocation of probate needs to be calculated from 2019; rather, the Court agreed with the Appellant's contention that the 2011 notice about the initiation of the mutation proceedings was the starting point of limitation. Thus, the application for revocation of probate filed in 2022 was time-barred, the Court held.

“…the notice in mutation proceedings would be deemed constructive notice. Attempts ought to have been made to figure out on what basis the mutation proceedings came to be filed, and the limitation as given under Article 137 would have applied from the day they would have found out that the said proceedings rested on probate of Will granted to the appellant. At any rate, the same would not have been 2019 to fall within the prescribed limitation in 2022. The respondents' application for revocation of probate would hopelessly be time barred.”, the court held.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's decision was restored.

Cause Title: DHIRAJ DUTTA VERSUS ANIRBAN SEN & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Deepti Garg, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.