Supreme Court of India
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWATversusDR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1122
- Decided
- 4 October 2019
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARUN MISHRA
Holding
The petition for revocation of the letters of administration is time‑barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three‑year limitation from the date of grant, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Antoinette Bhagwat's will was probated in California and, in ancillary proceedings, letters of administration were granted by the Bombay High Court in 1994 to Dr. Surendra Parakhe. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, a relative of the deceased's husband, claimed he had no notice of this grant and filed a petition in 1999 seeking revocation on grounds of fraud, non‑compliance with inventory requirements and lack of locus standi. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the application was barred by the three‑year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which runs from the date of the grant. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Succession Act, 1925 contains no specific limitation, so the residuary provision of Article 137 applies, and the limitation period began on 25 November 1994, rendering the petition time‑barred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe a specific limitation period for revocation of letters of administration; does Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 fill the gap?
- From what date does the limitation period for a petition to revoke letters of administration commence – the date of grant or the date of knowledge?
- Does the petitioner have locus standi to seek revocation of the letters of administration?
Legislation cited
- Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 228, s. 263
- Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 137
Subjects
successionprobateletters of administrationlimitationArticle 137revocationancillary proceedingsforeign probatelocus standi
Judgment
658 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 13 S.C.R. 658
REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.
A RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT
v.
DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE
(Civil Appeal No.1399 of 2010)
B OCTOBER 04, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN
AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925: s. 263 – Revocation or annulment of
grant of probate, or letters of administration – On facts, grant of
C
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
D 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
E
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
F 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
G 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
H limitation. [Para 12] [666-A-B]
658
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. 659
DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE
1.2 In the instant case, the letters of administration were A
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
B
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]
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 D
South, New Delhi and Others, (2019) Online SCC 630
(SC) ; Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias (2018) 1
SCC 271 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
E
(1985) 1 SCC 144 referred to Para 7
[2008] 5 SCR 1057 referred to Para 13
[1977] 1 SCR 996 referred to Para 13
(2018) 1 SCC 271 referred to Para 16 F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1399
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 1183 of 2001. G
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Devansh Gandhi, Siddharth Dias, Umrao Singh Rawat,
Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Advs. for the Respondents. H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This appeal by special leave questions the decision of the
Bombay High Court affirming the rejection of an application for
revocation of letters of administration granted to the respondent,
B (hereafter “the LOA holder”), in respect of the will of deceased Mrs.
Antoinette Bendre Bhagwat (hereafter “Antoinette”).
2. Antoinette was the wife of Balaji Balwant Bhagwat (hereafter
“Balaji”). The couple were permanent residents of California, US and
were US citizens. Balaji predeceased Antoinette, bequeathing all
C properties to her. She died on 23.1.1981 at Alhambra, Los Angeles
County, California. U.S.A. In her last will dated 24.6.1977, she
bequeathed her properties to her husband. The will stipulated that in
the event of Balaji predeceasing her, the property was to vest in an
inter - vivos trust. The trust was created by the testatrix and her
husband by a deed dated 24.6.1977. The Executor had filed a petition
D for probate of Antoinette’s will (Probate Case No. 662463 in the
Superior Court of the State of California for Los Angeles County). It
was probated on 26.2.1981.
3. On 02.11.1982, Dinkar Sambhaji Patole (hereafter “Patole”)
as constituted attorney of the original executor’s successor, applied to
E the Bombay High Court (Petition No. 915/ 1982) for grant of letters of
administration with an authenticated copy of the will annexed to the
petition, in respect of the property and credit of the deceased, in the
State of Maharashtra. Patole died during the pendency of proceedings
which were continued by Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe who was duly
brought on record. letters of administration were granted by the High
F Court by order dated 24.11.1994.
4. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, the appellant (hereafter “Ramesh”)
claiming to be a relative of Antoinette’s husband, took out a notice of
motion (No. 912 of 1997) in Petition No. 915/ 1982 (i.e. the original
administration proceeding). That application (notice of motion) was
G allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.
Ramesh claimed that neither he nor his father, nor any other family
member had notice of the administration petition. It was alleged that
only when the respondent LOA holder applied for mutation of name of
Rural Gospel and Medical Mission of India, on the basis of the letters
issued by the court, did he come to know about it after making inquiries
H in the office of the High Court. Ramesh claimed that on 29.03.1997 he
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. DR. SURENDRA 661
MANOHAR PARAKHE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
learnt that the respondent had obtained letters of administration in A
respect of the will of Balaji by filing another Petition No. 912/ 97. This
was allowed to be withdrawn on 01.04.1998. He then filed an
application for revocation on 29.07.1999.
5. Ramesh alleged that the LOA holder had not complied with
the direction of the court granting letters of administration by preparing B
an inventory of the property and credits within six months, and further
that he did not render accounts of the property and credits within one
year. The other allegation was that letters of administration were
obtained by suppression of material facts and by misleading the Court.
The appellant alleged that his uncle, late Balaji, had established the
Bhagwant Mukti Ashram and the name of the Ashram was mutated in C
the revenue records in respect of the property. The testatrix’s will and
that of Balaji clearly showed that their intention was to use the property
for charitable purposes. The appellant Ramesh also alleged that the
Superior Court of California granted probate to John Graf Klotzle who
was named as the successor by the earlier executor (Carl Kinsinger) D
and that the said executor appointed the respondent as his attorney for
obtaining letters of administration. Therefore, it was alleged that the
LOA holder was not appointed executor by the will. It was alleged that
the probate was obtained from the Superior Court of California without
notice to the petitioner or his father or any other relative. It was alleged
to have been obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts and E
the said decision is given contrary to, and ignoring the law in force in
India.
6. The LOA holder opposed the application for cancellation of
probate on several grounds, including that the petition was barred by
the law of limitation, inasmuch as such applications are covered by F
Article 137 of the Limitation Act,1963, and the petition ought to have
been presented within three years. It was urged that even if the period
of pendency of notice of motion were excluded, the petition for
cancellation of probate was barred by time. It was also urged that the
appellant had no locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant as
G
he had no interest in the estate of the deceased on intestacy. It was
alleged that the letters of administration granted by the court was an
ancillary grant under Sections 228 and 271 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 and could not be revoked as long as the original grant
subsisted. The Superior Court of California which probated the will
followed the necessary procedure. H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.
A 7. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court relied on
Rukminidevi v. Narendra Lal Gupta, (1985) 1 SCC 144, to say that
if a party does not contest proceedings for grant of probate, it cannot
be permitted to question the validity of the will by a collateral attack in
different proceedings. The court held that the grant being in rem, binds
not only persons who are parties but also others who are not parties to
B the proceedings, whether they had notice or not. The probate granted
by the competent court is conclusive on the validity of the will unless
revoked in accordance with law, and no evidence can be admitted to
impeach it except in the proceedings for revocation. Thus, since the
original probate granted by the California court was not challenged by
C appropriate proceedings and since the probate was in force, there is
no question of revoking an ancillary grant which was merely to give
effect to the original probate of the will granted by the California court.
The Single Judge also held that since the letters of administration were
granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994 and the petition for its
revocation was filed on 21.7.1999, proceedings were time barred. The
D Single Judge held that such proceedings are covered by Article 137 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires the application to be filed within
3 years from the date when the right to apply accrues. Even if the
period spent on the notice of motion from 29.3.1997 to 1.4.1998 were
excluded from consideration, the petition for revocation was filed beyond
the period of three years from 25.11.1994, as the three year period
E
expired on 24.11.1997, and the revocation petition was filed on
21.7.1999. The court, after excluding the period of seven months and
two days spent in pursuing the remedy of notice of motion, held it to
be hopelessly barred by time. The Single Judge also held that the
appellant Ramesh was not an heir of the deceased - a fact admitted
F by him in the rejoinder affidavit. In view of these facts, the application
for revocation was rejected. Ramesh appealed unsuccessfully to the
Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench rejected the sole
contention made in the appeal, that the law prescribed no limitation for
an application of cancellation of letters of administration.
G 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Ramesh had
no notice of the proceedings initiated for grant of letters of administration
and that he and his father (Balaji’s brother) became aware of the fact
only when the properties were sought to be mutated in the revenue
records, pursuant to the letters granted. It was submitted that the
limitation for filing an application should be calculated from the date of
H knowledge of the grant, and not the date of grant.
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. DR. SURENDRA 663
MANOHAR PARAKHE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
9. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged this court A
to dismiss the appeal. It was contended that the letters of administration
in respect of the will in question dated 24.06.1977 were granted by the
court after due notice and citation; proceedings for their grant were in
rem. Consequently, when granted, the letters of administration operated
against the entire world. The cause of action, if any, for seeking their
B
cancellation, therefore, accrued from the date of their grant, and not
on the date of knowledge of grant, in the absence of any allegation of
fraud.
10. As evident, the appellant’s application for cancellation of the
letters of administration was rejected concurrently. The only question
C
urged is whether there is any limitation prescribed and if not, whether
the residuary provision (Article 137 in the schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963 – hereafter “the Act”) applies and for which the starting point
of limitation is the date of alleged knowledge of the grant of letters of
administration.
D
11. The relevant provisions dealing with recognition in respect
of grant of probate, of letters of administration in respect of the probate
granted, and cancellation of probate (or letters of administration) of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, read as follows:
“Section 228 - Administration, with copy annexed, of
E
authenticated copy of Will proved abroad
When a Will has been proved and deposited in a Court of
competent jurisdiction situated beyond the limits of the State,
whether within or beyond the limits of 1 India, and a properly
authenticated copy of the Will
F
is produced, letters of administration may be granted with a
copy of such copy annexed.
----- ----- -----
Section 263 - Revocation or annulment for just cause
The grant of probate or letters of administration may be G
revoked or annulled for just cause.
Explanation.—Just cause shall be deemed to exist where—
(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in
substance; or H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.
A (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false
suggestion, orsuggestion, or by concealing from the
Court something material to the case; or
(c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation
of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant,
B though such allegation was made in ignorance or
inadvertently; or
(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through
circumstances; or
C (e) the person to whom the grant was made has willfully
and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an
inventory or account in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that
Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a
material respect.
D
Illustrations
(i) The Court by which the grant was made had no
jurisdiction.
E (ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought
to have been cited.
(iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or
revoked.
(iv) A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B,
F as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was
never married to him.
(v) A has been taken administration to the estate of B as if
he had diedintestate, but a Will has since been
discovered.
G
(vi) Since probate was granted, a latter Will has been
discovered.
(vii) Since probate was granted, a codicil has been
discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment
H of executors under the Will.
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. DR. SURENDRA 665
MANOHAR PARAKHE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
(viii) The person to whom probate was, or letters of A
administration were,granted has subsequently become
of unsound mind.
----- ----- -----
276. Petition for probate-(1) Application for probate or for B
letters ofadministration, with the Will annexed, shall be made
by a petition distinctly written in English or in the language
in ordinary use inproceedings before this Court in which the
application is made, with the Will or, in the cases mentioned
in sections 237, 238 and 239, a copy, draft, or statement of
the contents thereof, annexed, and stating— C
(a) the time of the testator’s death,
(b) that the writing annexed is his last Will and testament,
(c) that it was duly executed,
D
(d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the
petitioner’s hands, and
(e) when the application is for probate, that the petitioner
is the executor named in the Will.
E
(2) In addition to these particulars, the petition shall further
state -
(a) when the application is to the District Judge, that the
deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of
abode, or had some property, situate within the F
jurisdiction of the Judge; and
(b) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the
deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of
abode within the jurisdiction of such Delegate.
G
(3) Where the application is to the District Judge and nay
portion ofthe assets likely to come to the petitioner’s
hands is situate in another State, the petition shall
further state the amount of such assets in each State
and the District Judges within whose jurisdiction such
assets are situate.” H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.
A 12. The Indian 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 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 reads as follows:
B
Description Period of Time from which period
limitation begins to run
37. Any other application Three years When the right to apply
for which no period of accrues
limitation is provided
C elsewhere in this
Division.
13. This issue was considered in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur
v. Kirandeep Kaur & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 463. This court negatived
the plea that since the Act prescribes no period of limitation in regard
D
to matters concerning grant of probate or letters of administration, there
is no time limit. The court followed the decision in the Kerala State
Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1977) 1 SCR
996 which took note of the change in the collocation of words in Article
137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 compared with Article 181 of the
E Limitation Act, 1908, and held that applications contemplated under
Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. In the older Limitation Act of 1908, there was no division between
applications in specified cases and other applications, as in the
Limitation Act, 1963. The court held in Kerala State Electricity Board
F (supra) that:
“The words “any other application” under Article 137
cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be
applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those
mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other
G application under Article 137 would be petition or any
application under any Act. But it has to be an application
to a court for the reason that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1963
Limitation Act speak of expiry of prescribed period when
court is closed and extension of prescribed period if
H applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that he had
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. DR. SURENDRA 667
MANOHAR PARAKHE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the A
application during such period.
----- ----- -----
22. The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963
Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed
B
under any Act to a civil court. With respect we differ from
the view taken by the two- judge bench of this Court in
Athani Municipal Council case and hold that Article 137 of
the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications
contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure.”
14. Applying the ratio in Kerala Electricity Board (supra), the C
court, in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra) observed that:
“the crucial expression in the petition is “right to apply”.
In view of what has been stated by this Court, Article 137 is
clearly applicable to the petition for grant of letters of
administration. As rightly observed by the High Court in such D
proceedings the application merely seeks recognition from
the Court to perform a duty because of the nature of the
proceedings it is a continuing right.”
The court then concluded that the right to apply for probate
accrues on the date of death of the testator. E
15. Recently, in Sameer Kapoor and Another v. State through
Sub-Divisional Magistrate South, New Delhi and Others, 2019
Online SCC 630 (SC), the context was slightly different; the probate
was issued by a foreign court. The executor sought letters of
administration in an Indian court (like in the present case), under Section F
228. The court dealt with the objection of limitation, and noticed, firstly,
that Kunvarjeet Singh Khadapur (supra) had ruled about applicability
of Article 137 for grant of probate in the first instance. Drawing a
distinction from the grant of probate (or letters of administration) and
the recognition of that, under Section 228, the court (in Sameer Kapoor G
(supra)) held as follows:
“it can be said that in a proceeding, or in other words, in
an application filed for grant of probate or letters of
administration, no right is asserted or claimed by the
applicant. The applicant only seeks recognition of the court
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.
A to perform a duty. Probate or letters of administration issued
by a competent court is conclusive proof of the legal
character throughout the world. That the proceedings filed
for grant of probate or letters of administration is not an
action in law but it is an action in rem. As held by this Court
in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), an
B
application for grant of probate or letters of administration
is for the court’s permission to perform a legal duty created
by a will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is
a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the
death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives
C and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if
created, remains to be executed.”
16. The decision in Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias,
(2018) 1 SCC 271, dealt with the precise issue of the period of
limitation applicable for an application for cancellation of a probate or
D letters of administration. This court held as follows:
“One must keep in mind that the grant of probate by a
Competent Court operates as a judgment in rem and once
the probate to the Will is granted, then such probate is good
not only in respect of the parties to the proceedings, but
E against the world. If the probate is granted, the same
operates from the date of the grant of the probate for the
purpose of limitation Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act
in proceedings for revocation of probate. In this matter, as
mentioned supra, the Appellant was a minor at the time of
F grant of probate. She attained majority on 09.09.1965. She
got married on 27.10.1965. In our considered opinion, three
years limitation as prescribed Under Article 137 runs from
the date of the Appellant attaining the age of majority i.e.
three years from 09.09.1965. The Appellant did not choose
to initiate any proceedings till the year 25.01.1996 i.e., a
G good 31 years after she attained majority. No explanation
worthy of acceptance has been offered by the Appellant to
show as to why she did not approach the Court of law within
the period of limitation. At the cost of repetition, we observe
that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove
H that the Will was a result of fraud or undue influence. The
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. DR. SURENDRA 669
MANOHAR PARAKHE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
same Will has remained un-challenged until the date of filing A
of application for revocation. No acceptable explanation is
offered for such a huge delay of 31 years in approaching
the Court for cancellation or revocation of grant of probate.”
17. In the present case, the letters of administration were granted
in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994. The High Court took note of B
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
C
to all concerned. Clearly, the petition for revocation of letters of
administration was time barred. It is accordingly held that there is no
infirmity in the concurrent findings impugned; the appeal fails and is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
D
Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "succession"Sign in to search