Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mithias (D) By Lrs.
Background
The appellant's father died in 1959 leaving a will bequeathing everything to her mother, who was granted probate of the will in 1960 while the appellant was still a minor. The appellant attained majority in 1965 but did not challenge the probate until 1996, some 36 years later and 31 years after turning 18, when she applied to revoke the probate, alleging that she should have been notified of the original proceedings and that the grant was procured by fraud. Both the District Court and the Karnataka High Court rejected her application on merits and as time-barred.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's lack of notice (citation) at a particular location did not make the original probate proceedings "defective in substance," since she lived with and was effectively represented by her mother throughout, and received no benefit from the will anyway (her mother was sole beneficiary). It also held she had never produced any evidence of fraud, which must be specifically pleaded and proved, not merely alleged. Finally, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act (a three-year limitation period running from when the right to apply accrues: here, from the appellant's attaining majority in 1965), the Court held her 1996 application was hopelessly time-barred, and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Challenges to a grant of probate must be brought promptly: under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the three-year clock starts running once the right to challenge arises (such as on attaining adulthood), and bare, unproven allegations of fraud will not revive a claim that is decades too late.