1. Application for revocation of letters of administration granted in ancillary proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, challenged on grounds of fraud and non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1117
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT – APPELLANT
VS.
DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1399 OF 2010
Decided On : 04-10-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Vinay Navare, Gwen Karthika, Abha R. Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Siddhartha Dias, L. Singh Rawat, V. D. Khanna, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Vinay Navare, Gwen Karthika, Abha R. Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Siddhartha Dias, L. Singh Rawat, V. D. Khanna, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
Applications under Article 137 not confined to application under CPC. Applies to letters of administration as well.
Grant of Letters of administration are in rem and constitute notice to all.
Headnote:
(a) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 228, 263, 276 r/w Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 - Act does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for the grant of probate, or for moving an application for cancellation of probate or letters of administration - Does not mean that there is no time limit - Applications under Article 137 not confined to application under CPC - Applies to letters of administration - Instantly letters of administration granted on 25.11.1994 - Petition for revocation of the letters of administration filed on 29.7.1999 - Held time barred. (Para 13, 17)
(b) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 228, 263, 276 - Grant of Letters of administration are in rem - Constitute notice to all. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Antoinette was the wife of Balaji Balwant Bhagwat. The couple were permanent residents of California, US and were US citizens. Balaji predeceased Antoinette, bequeathing all properties to her. Similarly Antoinette also bequeathed her properties to Balaji. In her last will dated 24.6.1977, she bequeathed her properties to her husband. The will stipulated that in the event of Balaji predeceasing her, the property was to vest in an inter vivos trust. The trust was created by the testatrix and her husband by a deed dated 24.6.1977. She died on 23.1.1981 at Alhambra, Los Angeles County, California. U.S.A. The Executor had filed a petition for probate of Antoinette’s will. It was probated on 26.2.1981.
On 02.11.1982, Dinkar Sambhaji Patole as constituted attorney of the original executor’s successor, applied to the High Court for grant of letters of administration with an authenticated copy of the will annexed to the petition, in respect of the property and credit of the deceased, in the State of Maharashtra. Patole died during the pendency of proceedings which were continued by Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe who was duly brought on record. Letters of administration were granted by the High Court by order dated 24.11.1994.
Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, the appellant claiming to be a relative of Antoinette’s husband, filed an application for revocation on 29.07.1999 which was dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by Ramesh.
Finding of the Court:
Application for revocation of letter of administration was time barred.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the application for revocation is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether limitation runs from grant or knowledge. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Grant of probate or letters of administration operates as a judgment in rem, binding the world and triggering the limitation period from the date of grant. (Para 7 , 16 , 17 )
4. Applications for revocation of probate or letters of administration are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with limitation running from the date of grant. (Para 12 , 16 , 17 )
5. Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings affirming the rejection of the revocation application as time-barred are upheld. (Para 17 )
6. Does the Limitation Act apply to applications for revocation of probate or letters of administration?
Yes. Since the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe a specific period, the residuary provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, providing a three-year limitation period for such applications. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. When does the limitation period begin for an application to revoke a grant of probate or letters of administration?
The limitation period runs from the date of the grant. Because a grant of probate operates as a judgment in rem, it is binding against the world from the date of issuance, and the right to apply for revocation accrues then. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. Can an ancillary grant of letters of administration be revoked if the original foreign probate remains unchallenged?
No. An ancillary grant is issued to give effect to an original probate. If the original probate granted by a competent court is not challenged and remains in force, there is no basis for revoking the ancillary grant. (Para 7 )
9. Does the date of knowledge of the grant serve as the starting point for limitation in revocation proceedings?
No. Since the grant is a judgment in rem operating against the entire world, the cause of action for seeking cancellation accrues from the date of the grant, not the date of knowledge, absent allegations of fraud. (Para 9 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This appeal by special leave questions the decision of the Bombay High Court affirming the rejection of an application for revocation of letters of administration granted to the respondent, (hereafter “the LOA holder”), in respect of the will of deceased Mrs. Antoinette Bendre Bhagwat (hereafter “Antoinette”).
2. Antoinette was the wife of Balaji Balwant Bhagwat (hereafter “Balaji”). The couple were permanent residents of California, US and were US citizens. Balaji predeceased Antoinette, bequeathing all properties to her. She died on 23.1.1981 at Alhambra, Los Angeles County, California. U.S.A. In her last will dated 24.6.1977, she bequeathed her properties to her husband. The will stipulated that in the event of Balaji predeceasing her, the property was to vest in an inter vivos trust. The trust was created by the testatrix and her husband by a deed dated 24.6.1977. The Executor had filed a petition for probate of Antoinette’s will (Probate Case No. 662463 in the Superior Court of the State of California for Los Angeles County). It was probated on 26.2.1981.
3. On 02.11.1982, Dinkar Sambhaji Patole (hereafter “Patole”) as constituted attorney of the original executor’s successor, applied to the Bombay High Court (Petition No. 915/ 1982) for grant of letters of administration with an authenticated copy of the will annexed to the petition, in respect of the property and credit of the deceased, in the State of Maharashtra. Patole died during the pendency of proceedings which were continued by Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe who was duly brought on record. letters of administration were granted by the High Court by order dated 24.11.1994.
4. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, the appellant (hereafter “Ramesh”) claiming to be a relative of Antoinette’s husband, took out a notice of motion (No. 912 of 1997) in Petition No. 915/ 1982 (i.e. the original administration proceeding). That application (notice of motion) was allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings. Ramesh claimed that neither he nor his father, nor any other family member had notice of the administration petition. It was alleged that only when the respondent LOA holder applied for mutation of name of Rural Gospel and Medical Mission of India, on the basis of the letters issued by the court, did he come to know about it after making inquiries in the office of the High Court. Ramesh claimed that on 29.03.1997 he learnt that the respondent had obtained letters of administration in respect of the will of Balaji by filing another Petition No. 912/ 97. This was allowed to be withdrawn on 01.04.1998. He then filed an application for revocation on 29.07.1999.
5. Ramesh alleged that the LOA holder had not complied with the direction of the court granting letters of administration by preparing an inventory of the property and credits within six months, and further that he did not render accounts of the property and credits within one year. The other allegation was that letters of administration were obtained by suppression of material facts and by misleading the Court. The appellant alleged that his uncle, late Balaji, had established the Bhagwant Mukti Ashram and the name of the Ashram was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the property. The testatrix’s will and that of Balaji clearly showed that their intention was to use the property for charitable purposes. The appellant Ramesh also alleged that the Superior Court of California granted probate to John Graf Klotzle who was named as the successor by the earlier executor (Carl Kinsinger) and that the said executor appointed the respondent as his attorney for obtaining letters of administration. Therefore, it was alleged that the LOA holder was not appointed executor by the will. It was alleged that the probate was obtained from the Superior Court of California without notice to the petitioner or his father or any other relative. It was alleged to have been obtained by f
