Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 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 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 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 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.

“Section 228 ­ Administration, with copy annexed, of 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 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 revoked or annulled for just cause.

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 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 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.”