Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen and Ors.
Background
A woman inherited her husband's properties and, before her death in 1989, made a will naming her nephew (the appellant) as sole executor and beneficiary; he obtained probate of the will in 1995. Years later, in 2022, nephews-in-law of the deceased (the respondents) applied to revoke that probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, claiming they only learned of it in 2019. The Single Judge dismissed their revocation application as time-barred, but the Division Bench reversed that, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of whether the 2022 revocation application was filed within the limitation period.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since the Indian Succession Act prescribes no specific limitation period for revoking probate, Article 137 of the Limitation Act (three years from when the right to apply accrues) governs. It found that the respondents had already been served notice in 2013 in connected mutation/revenue proceedings but chose to ignore it because entries already stood in their favour: this, the Court held, amounted to "constructive notice," since a reasonably prudent person receiving a court notice would have inquired into its basis. Applying the standard of a reasonably prudent man, the Court concluded the limitation clock could not be treated as starting only in 2019, making the 2022 revocation application hopelessly time-barred. It therefore set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the revocation application, allowing the appeal with easy costs.
Lesson Learnt
Ignoring a court notice, even one connected to a different but related proceeding, can still count as "constructive notice" of the underlying matter and start the limitation clock running; sitting on rights because one already benefits from the status quo is not the conduct of a reasonably prudent person.