Orissa High Court
Sri Sri Madan Mohan Dev vs Pritilata Jana And Ors on 12 December, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O. No. 298 of 2025
(From the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge,
Puri in Revocation Misc. Case No.148 of 2016)
Sri Sri Madan Mohan Dev, Bije .... Appellant (s)
Mohinipur, Madan Mohan Matha,
Puri
-versus-
Pritilata Jana and Ors. .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Nanda, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-17.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this appeal, the Appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri condoning over twelve years of delay, reject Revocation Misc. Case No. 148 of 2016 as time barred under Article 137, and uphold the finality of the 2002 probate grant.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 15Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
(i) The present First Appeal is instituted under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, assailing the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the District Judge, Puri in Revocation Misc. Case No. 148 of 2016, whereby delay of more than twelve years was condoned and the revocation petition directed against the Letters of Administration granted on 08.04.2002 in Probate Misc. Case No. 25 of 1998 (Old No. 10 of 1996) was admitted for hearing.
(ii) The revocation proceedings were initiated by the respondents, who claim to be the legal heirs of Late Rajkishore Jena, son of the testator Late Sarbeswar Jena @ Sarbananda Das @ Guruji. The respondents pleaded that they became aware of the probate order on 08.10.2014 upon inquiry with the Revenue Inspector and thereafter ascertained that Probate Misc. Case No. 10 of 1996 had been filed by one Manmohan Jena, asserting himself to be the Chela of the testator and Marfatdar of a deity associated with an alleged Matha.
(iii) The respondents asserted that the Will dated 21.10.1995, forming the basis of the probate, was fraudulent, and that the testator was not in a condition to execute it before his death on 04.11.1995. They alleged that in the original probate proceedings no general or special citations were issued, no notice was served on the legal heirs or local authorities, and that mandatory procedural requirements under the Succession Act were not complied with.
(iv) According to the respondents, Late Sarbeswar Jena had purchased land in Mohinipur in the late 1960s, constructed a residence, lived there, and cultivated land. They contended that the family continued visiting the Page 2 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 property and paying land revenue and that the land remained recorded in his name for several years.
(v) Upon discovering the probate order, the respondents filed CMA No. 247 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri seeking revocation. The said CMA was dismissed on 05.07.2016 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act and judicial precedent. Thereafter, on 27.07.2016, the respondents filed Revocation Misc. Case No. 148 of 2016 before the District Judge, along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(vi) The appellant opposed the condonation of delay, stating that the probate had been granted after publication and proclamation, including beat of drum and newspaper notice, and that the respondents were aware of the proceedings earlier as they used to visit the property and access land records. The appellant also stated that the probate was a judgment in rem, granted in 2002, under which the appellant and his predecessor had managed the Matha property for over two decades.
(vii) After hearing both sides, the District Judge held that the respondents had sufficiently proved that they acquired knowledge of the probate order only on 08.10.2014, and, having acted promptly thereafter, the delay deserved to be condoned. Consequently, the revocation petition was admitted for adjudication.
(viii) The appellant earlier challenged the condonation order in W.P.(C) No. 10431 of 2024. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act was the proper remedy. An interlocutory application for recall/modification was Page 3 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 disposed of on 02.05.2025 with similar observations. The present First Appeal has been filed thereafter.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The appellant contends that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable because the revocation petition filed in 2016 was hopelessly barred by limitation, as Article 137 of the Limitation Act mandates that proceedings for revocation must be filed within three years from the date of the grant, not from alleged discovery of the grant many years later.
(ii) The appellant argues that the respondents' plea of first knowledge on 08.10.2014 is false, contradictory, and unsupported, especially given their own admissions of regularly visiting the Mohinipur property and paying land revenue, which necessarily implies awareness of mutation records and ongoing possession by the Matha for more than two decades.
(iii) It is contended that the probate case received wide publicity through proclamation by beat of drum, newspaper publication, and general notice, and therefore the respondents cannot feign ignorance merely to escape the bar of limitation; the District Judge erred in accepting their claim without verifying the veracity of the alleged date of knowledge.
(iv) The appellant asserts that the District Judge ignored binding Supreme Court precedents, including Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias 1and 1 (2018) 1 SCC 271 Page 4 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Dr. Surendra Parakhe2, which hold that grants of probate are judgments in rem, bind the world, and that limitation runs from the date of grant; that revocation cannot be sought after inordinate delay in the absence of fraud, undue influence, or procedural illegality.
(v) The appellant maintains that the respondents have shown no evidence of fraud, suppression, or material irregularity in the original probate proceedings, nor any just cause under Section 263 of the Succession Act; the Will remained unchallenged for more than a decade and mere dissatisfaction with the grant does not constitute grounds for revocation.
(vi) The appellant submits that condoning a delay exceeding 12 years without any sufficient or bona fide explanation destroys the finality of probate proceedings, undermines settled succession rights of the Matha, and results in serious prejudice, as the appellant has been managing religious and administrative affairs based on a valid probate for more than twenty years.
(vii) The appellant contends that the revocation petition is an abuse of process, motivated by personal interest in the Matha property, filed only after mutation and land registration proceedings were completed in favour of the deity and Math; the respondents remained silent for years and have approached the court with unclean hands and fabricated pleadings.
(viii) The appellant also asserts that the respondents, as alleged legal heirs of the Mahant, lack locus standi to challenge the Will, because property of 2 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 4948 Page 5 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 a Math is not heritable under personal law, and any Will in favour of the presiding deity does not require recognition from successors; therefore, the revocation petition is fundamentally misconceived.
(ix) The appellant argues that the District Judge mechanically accepted the respondents' version without proper judicial inquiry into sufficiency of cause, misapplied the principles of limitation, and ignored the statutory bar under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Article 137, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice.
(x) The appellant finally contends that the impugned order has unlawfully reopened a judicially concluded proceeding, disturbed the rights of a religious institution, and infringed the appellant's right to property under Article 300A, warranting appellate interference to set aside the order and dismiss the revocation petition as time-barred. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Supporting the impugned order, it is contended that the Respondent No.l is the widow daughter-in-law of Sarbeswar Jena and Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are his grandchildren and Respondent No.8 is his daughter.
Said Sarbeswar Jena died on 04.1 1.1995 at his residence and one Manmohan Jena had managed to obtain Letter of Administration on the strength of a fraudulent Will created by him vide order dated 08.04.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.,), Puri without impleading the legal heirs of Late Sarbeswar Jena. Based upon such order, said Manmohan Jena mutated the case land in his name. Such fact came to Page 6 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 the knowledge of Rajkishore Jena, the son of Sarbeswar Jena on 08.10.2014. After due inquiry on 13.10.2014 he could know about the disposal of the Probate Misc. Case in which he and his sister Kamini Majhi being the legal heirs of the said Manmohan Jena, have not been impleaded as parties. Thereafter, he filed Revocation Misc. Case vide C.M.A. No.247/2014 in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri on 14.10.2014 to revoke the Probate Misc. Case No.25/10 of 1998/1996. But, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri dismissed the C.M.A vide order dated 05.07.2016 holding the same to be not maintainable in view of the statutory provision of Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act. Thereafter, the Respondents had come up with that Revocation Misc. Case with a prayer to admit the Misc. Case by condoning delay.
(ii) Having heard both the parties and taking into account the materials available in that case, learned District Judge, Puri has passed the impugned order with an opinion that the Respondents had approached that court immediately after knowing about the issuance of the probate and had shown sufficient cause i.e. the date of knowledge in the year, 2014.
(iii) In such view of the matter, it is contended that the appeal filed by the Appellant may be dismissed.
IV. ANALYSIS AND REASONING OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE:
5. The Court's reasoning hinges on the principle that when legal heirs are not impleaded in probate proceedings, especially where the grant is ex parte, the absence of notice substantially affects their ability to challenge the grant within the ordinary limitation period. By recognizing that the Page 7 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 testator's son and daughter were omitted from the original probate case, the Court treats the omission as a material irregularity significant enough to justify examining the date of knowledge in condonation proceedings.
6. The Court distinguishes the authorities cited by the opposite party by emphasizing the factual context: the probate remained unknown to the legal heirs for more than a decade due to their non-impleadment and the absence of any citation. Unlike cases where limitation strictly applies from the date of grant, the Court implicitly applies the doctrine that fraud, suppression, or lack of notice postpones limitation until the date of knowledge, thereby validating the petitioners' delay explanation anchored in October 2014.
7. The timeline presented, discovery on 08.10.2014, inspection on 13.10.2014, filing of CMA on 14.10.2014, dismissal on jurisdiction on 05.07.2016, and refiling before the District Judge on 27.07.2016, is treated by the Court as evidence of consistent diligence. The Court frames the petitioners' conduct as prompt and bona fide, thereby countering the opposite party's argument that the revocation is an afterthought or barred by a rigid three-year period.
8. The Court gives weight to the fact that probate was granted ex parte, the Will was allegedly created by a legatee who benefitted from the mutation, and the legal heirs were not impleaded at any stage. This cumulative assessment leads the Court to infer a prima facie justification for permitting the revocation case to proceed and for exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Page 8 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
9. Ultimately, the Court adopts a justice-oriented approach, holding that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient cause based on delayed knowledge, prompt legal action, and procedural exclusion in the original probate. This results in condonation of the delay and admission of the revocation petition, reflecting a judicial preference for adjudicating allegations of fraudulent probate on merits rather than foreclosing them on limitation alone.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
11. The appellant was granted probate/letters of administration on 08.04.2002 in respect of the estate of Late Sarbeswar Jena, based on a Will dated 21.10.1995. The respondents, claiming to be the omitted legal heirs (the testator's son and daughter), discovered this grant only in October 2014. They then filed a petition for revocation of the grant, alleging the Will was fraudulently obtained and that no notice was given to them in the original probate proceedings. The District Judge, however, condoned the 12-year delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the respondents had acted promptly upon first learning of the grant and that their omission as parties was a material irregularity. This First Appeal by the grantee of probate challenges the condonation order, contending the revocation petition is barred by limitation and legally untenable.
12. The Indian Succession Act does not specify a limitation period for revocation of probate. The residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act Page 9 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 applies, prescribing a three-year period for such petitions. In Lynette Fernandes (Supra), the Supreme Court unequivocally held that a grant of probate/letters of administration is a judgment in rem, effective from the date of grant. The Court stated:
"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 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 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 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 that the Will was a result of fraud or undue influence. The same Will has remained un-challenged until the date of filing 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."
13. Thus, the limitation clock starts to run from the grant date. The claimant's knowledge or ignorance of the grant is irrelevant to limitation. This principle was reinforced in Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat (supra). In that case the Supreme Court observed that the grant itself Page 10 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 (25.11.1994) constitutes notice to the world, and a revocation petition filed on 29.7.1999 (over 5 years later) was clearly time barred. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the petition for revocation could not be entertained after expiry of the three-year period from the grant.
14. The District Judge's reliance on the respondents' "first knowledge" in 2014, and application of Section 5 Limitation Act, is at odds with these authorities. Once a grant is made (here in 2002), Article 137 commences. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend the residuary three-year period beyond reason. In Lynette Fernandes (supra) the appellant waited 31 years with no valid excuse and the Court refused to condone any delay. Likewise, in Ramesh Bhagwat (supra), a 5-year delay was held fatal. Here the respondents admit a delay of over 12 years from the date of grant. They have shown no extraneous fraud or continuous disability that would defer limitation. Their ignorance, if true, is a result of their own lack of diligence rather than any legal disability. This Court is bound by the Supreme Court's mandate that limitation runs from the grant. Hence, on limitation grounds alone the revocation petition must be rejected.
15. The respondents contend they were not impleaded in 2002, which they say deprived them of notice and constitutes "just cause" under Section
263. It is true that explanation (ii) to Section 263 of the Succession Act recognizes as just cause "the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited". However, this is not an absolute entitlement to annulment. As held in Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi3, 3 1955 AIR 566 Page 11 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 failure to cite legal heirs may be a ground for revocation, but the court has discretion to refuse revocation if on the facts no substantial prejudice ensued. The Supreme Court explained:
"The omission to issue citations to persons who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may well be in a normal case a ground by itself for revocation of the grant. But this is not an absolute right irrespective of other considerations arising from the proved facts of a case. The law has vested a judicial discretion in the Court to revoke a grant where the court may have prima facie reasons to believe that it was necessary to have the will proved afresh in the presence of interested parties."
16. In the aforementioned case itself, the Court declined revocation because the will's validity was unchallenged and the omission did not affect the proceedings: revoking the grant would serve no useful purpose. Here, similarly, the respondents have never challenged the genuineness or execution of the Will since 1995. The Will remained on record and unchallenged until they belatedly appeared. In effect, they seek to overturn a grant after a long acquiescence, merely because they were not named parties. Even if the District Judge viewed this as a "material irregularity," it does not automatically override the law on limitation.
17. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Lynette Fernandes (supra) that in the absence of evidence of fraud or undue influence, a probate grant will not be set aside after unexplained delay, applies squarely. No evidence has been furnished to show any fraud or collusion in the probate proceedings.
18. The District Judge found that respondents acted promptly from October 2014 onward. However, promptness after discovery cannot cure the Page 12 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 inordinate prior delay once the three-year period is over. Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation for continuous "sufficient cause,"
but this is not a license to ignore a hard limitation rule for judgments in rem. Multiple precedents have cautioned that allegations of suppression or fraud must be supported by evidence, and long delay is generally fatal to such claims.
19. Here, the respondents' own behaviour undermines their plea of ignorance. They had visited the property regularly, engaged with revenue authorities, and presumably saw mutation records. The records (or at least the appellant's assertions) suggest the land was under the Matha's management, which should have put them on inquiry. Public proclamation of probate by drum and newspaper is also said to have occurred. Thus, even on their own case, the respondents' claim to have learned of the grant only in 2014 is suspect. But more importantly, even accepting their knowledge date, Article 137 does not reset. The judgment in Ramesh Bhagwat (Supra) makes it clear that the "original grant itself"
serves notice of its existence to all. One cannot indefinitely delay a revocation petition on the pretext of having been unaware. To hold otherwise would render finality of probate grants illusory
20. Even were limitation not fatal, the respondents have not demonstrated any substantive "just cause" under Section 263. Mere dissatisfaction with the probate or the omission of their names does not suffice. As noted, they have adduced no proof of forgery, fraud, or misrepresentation in obtaining the Will or grant. In Lynette Fernandes (supra), the Supreme Court observed that unsupported allegations of Page 13 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 fraud in procurement of probate, raised after a gap of decades, were insufficient. The court held as follows:
"At the cost of repetition, we observe that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove that the Will was a result of fraud or undue influence. The same will has remained unchallenged unitl the date of filing 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."
21. Here similarly, the Will has stood untouched until this petition. The explanation clauses in Section 263 deal with true defects (e.g. forged will, illegal grant, failure to exhibit account, etc.), none of which have been established. The sole defect alleged is absence of notice.
22. But as the Supreme Court held in Latika Bala Dassi (Supra) if the Will is valid and the omitted heirs had no realistic prospect of disproving it, revocation would be pointless. There is no material irregularity that "substantially affect[ed] the regularity and correctness" of the probate proceedings. On the contrary, the respondents' long acquiescence and failure to challenge the Will until now suggest this petition is an afterthought.
23. CONCLUSION:
24. In light of the foregoing analysis, the appeal is allowed. The District Judge erred in applying a "date of knowledge" test contrary to Supreme Court authority. The grant of probate dated 08.04.2002 stands as a judgment in rem, and Article 137's three-year limitation expired long ago. No persuasive cause has been shown to extend time. The Page 14 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 respondents' revocation petition (Revocation Misc. Case No.148 of 2016) is therefore barred by time and cannot be heard on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 is set aside. The petition for revocation of the grant is dismissed as time-barred.
25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th December, 2025 Page 15 of 15