Patna: The Patna High Court has delivered an important judgment clarifying how limitation law applies to petitions for probate and letters of administration under the Indian Succession Act, settling a long-standing area of legal uncertainty.
A division bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr Anshuman held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies both to petitions seeking the grant of probate or letters of administration and to petitions seeking their revocation.
In its detailed ruling, the court drew a crucial distinction between the two. It observed that the right to obtain probate or letters of administration is a “continuing right” that accrues on the death of the testator and may be exercised at any time thereafter. However, the bench cautioned that petitions filed more than three years after the death of the testator inevitably invite suspicion and must be supported by a proper and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The court made it clear that such petitions cannot be dismissed automatically merely because they are filed late. Instead, each case must be examined on its facts to determine whether the delay has been adequately explained.
In contrast, the bench held that the right to seek revocation of probate or letters of administration is not a continuing one. A strict limitation period of three years applies, to be calculated from the date on which probate is granted. Any revocation petition filed after this period, the court said, would be barred by limitation.
Emphasising the wider legal consequences, the judges noted that probate is binding not only on the parties before the court but “on the entire world”. As a result, certainty and finality in such matters are essential, and delayed challenges cannot be entertained indefinitely.
The judgment involved a close examination of earlier rulings of the Supreme Court of India, including decisions of a three-judge bench. Having answered the reference on limitation, the Patna High Court directed that all connected first appeals be placed before the appropriate bench for hearing on their merits.
The court also placed on record its appreciation of the “fair and honest” assistance provided by advocate Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra for the appellants, while senior advocate Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi and advocate Parth Gaurav appeared for the respondents.
