Succession Act, 1925: s. 263 – Revocation or annulment of grant of probate, or letters of administration – On facts, grant of letters of administration in ancillary proceedings to the attorney of the original executor’s successor in 1994 by the High Court – Relative of deceased’s husband filed for notice of motion in 1997 and withdrew it the next year and the year thereafter filed petition for revocation of the letters of administration – Appellant’s case that they became aware of the grant of letters of administration only when the properties were sought to be mutated in the revenue records, pursuant to the letters granted – Rejection of the application for revocation of letters of administration granted to the LOA holder in respect of the Will of deceased, by the courts below – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which covers proceedings for which no period of limitation is stipulated in the Act, provides for a three–year period of limitation – Article 137 applies to proceedings of letter of administration and grant of probate – On facts, petition for revocation of letters of administration filed in the year 1999 was time barred, given that the original grant of letters of administration took place in 1994 which constituted notice to all concerned – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art. 137.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for the grant of probate, or for moving an application for cancellation of probate or letters of administration. The residuary entry Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which covers proceedings for which no period of limitation is stipulated in the Act, provides for a three–year period of limitation. [Para 12] [666-A-B]
1.2 In the instant case, the letters of administration were granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994. The High Court took note of the fact that the notice of motion (in the disposed of proceeding) was filed on 29.03.1997; it was withdrawn on 01.04.1998. The petition for revocation of the letters of administration were filed on 29.7.1999. Proceedings were clearly time barred, given that the original grant of the ancillary letters took place on 25.11.1994; they constituted notice to all concerned. Clearly, the petition for revocation of letters of administration was time barred. Thus, there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings impugned. [Para 17] [669-B-C]
Rukminidevi v. Narendra Lal Gupta, (1985) 1 SCC
144 ; Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 463 : [2008] 5 SCR 1057 ; Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma [1977] 1 SCR 996 Sameer Kapoor and Another v. State through Sub–Divisional Magistrate South, New Delhi and Others, (2019) Online SCC 630 (SC) ; Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias (2018) 1 SCC 271 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.