Dhiraj Dutta Vs. Anirban Sen & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8280 of 2026)
(DB, Before Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.)
Overview
In this case, the Supreme Court examined an important question as to the limitation period applicable to the applications, seeking revocation of probate. The dispute arose from a probate, which was granted in respect of a will executed by Smt. Gouriprova Sen in 1995.
Twenty-seven years later, the Court was approached by the respondents seeking revocation of the probate on the ground that they became aware of its existence in 2019.
This claim was challenged by the appellants who argued that the respondents had been put on notice much earlier through the mutation proceedings relating to the same property. The main issue before the Court was whether the respondents could rely upon their alleged knowledge in 2019 or whether the law would treat them as having notice much earlier, thereby rendering their application barred by limitation.
Facts of the Case
Smt. Gouriprova Sen inherited property from her husband, Amulya Chandra Sen. On 9 July 1989, a will was executed by her under which her nephew, Dhiraj Dutta, the appellant herein, was appointed as the sole executor and beneficiary. After her death in October 1989, an application for probate was made by the appellant which was granted on 28 September 1995.
Several years later, proceedings were initiated by the appellant for the mutation of the revenue records on the basis of the probate. During the same, notices were issued to the people claiming an interest in the property. It was admitted by the respondents that they received a copy of the mutation application in July 2013. However, they chose not to participate in the proceedings since their names were already recorded in the revenue records.
It was claimed by the respondents that they came to know about the probate in 2019. On 5 July 2022, an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed by the respondents seeking revocation of the probate.
While the Single Judge dismissed the application as barred by limitation, the Division Bench took a different approach and allowed the matter to proceed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the applications seeking revocation of probate.
- Whether receipt of a mutation notice amounts to constructive notice of the probate proceedings.
- Whether the respondents could rely upon the knowledge acquired in 2019, despite receiving the notice in 2013.
- Whether the application filed in 2022 was within the prescribed period of limitation.
Decision
The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court, and the order of the Single Judge was restored. It was held that the revocation application filed by the respondents was barred by limitation.
The Court observed that the respondents had admittedly received notice of the proceedings in 2013. A reasonable person, upon receiving such notice concerning the property rights, would have made inquiries as to the basis of the claim being asserted. Instead, the respondents ignored the proceedings altogether.
While holding that such conduct amounted to willful abstention from inquiry, the doctrine of constructive notice was applied by the Court. It was ruled that the respondents could not postpone the commencement of limitation by claiming knowledge in 2019 when circumstances had already put them on notice years earlier.
Since the application for revocation was filed in 2022, it was far beyond the three-year period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was allowed accordingly, and the revocation proceedings were dismissed.
