1. Dispute regarding the revocation of Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, following the execution of multiple wills and a revocation deed. (Para 2 , 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 351
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Jai Ram – Appellant
Versus
Som Prakash & Anr. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1416-1417 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 1073-1074 of 2023)
Decided On : 03-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Ms. Kajal Chandra, Adv. Mr. Hatneimawi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Ms. Kajal Chandra, Adv. Mr. Hatneimawi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revocation of grant of Probate – In absence of plea or evidence on issue of limitation, High Court cannot set aside order of District Court.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 263 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Revocation of grant of Probate – Period of limitation – There was no objection raised to application being filed by appellant under Section 263 of 1925 Act as being hit by Article 137 of Limitation Act – In absence of such plea raised by respondents, District Court proceeded to consider application filed under Section 263 of 1925 Act on its merits and allowed the application – High Court was not right in setting aside order of District Court on the ground that application filed by appellant under Section 263 of 1925 Act was hit by Article 137 of Limitation Act – In absence of such a plea or evidence on issue of limitation, High Court could not have set aside order of District Court – Order of High Court set aside and appeal restored on file of High Court. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
District Judge held that Will dated 01.01.1991 in favour of respondent No. 1 had been revoked by way of a revocation deed dated 26.09.1996 and a second Will dated 30.01.1996 was executed by the testator in favour of the appellant herein. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 approached the High Court of Delhi by way of filing FAO No. 223 of 2018. By the impugned order dated 10.10.2022, the High Court allowed appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 and set aside order dated 20.12.2017. High Court observed that appellant herein filed revocation application beyond period of limitation. Hence the instant appeal has been filed.
Findings of Court:
High Court is requested to consider appeals purely on merit and without going into question of limitation as there is no pleading on this aspect and consequently no issue raised or evidence being let in before District Court.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The High Court erred in setting aside the District Court’s order solely on the ground that the Section 263 application was belated without any pleaded limitation issue before the District Court (!) . - In the absence of any plea or evidence on limitation raised by the respondents, the District Court proceeded to decide the Section 263 application on its merits and granted relief; thus, the High Court should not have interfered (!) . - The Supreme Court restored the District Court’s order and directed the High Court to consider the appeals on merit without addressing limitation, since there was no pleading or evidence on that aspect before the District Court (!) (!) . - There was no objection by the respondents to the Section 263 application being filed under Article 137, and lack of such objection implies the District Court did not have limitation issues to decide; a belated limitation objection cannot be raised for the first time in appeal (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that limitation issues require proper pleadings and evidence; a mixed question cannot be assumed without a prior record of such issues being raised and proved in the trial court (!) . - The High Court is instructed to consider appeals on their merits without delving into limitation, given the absence of a pleaded limitation issue at the trial level (!) (!) . - The appeals are allowed and restored on the High Court’s file, with directions to decide purely on merits and expeditiously (!) (!) . - No costs awarded; pending applications disposed of (!) .
What is the effect of not raising the limitation issue before the District Court on a Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 application for revocation of probate?
What is the appropriate scope of a High Court’s review when the District Court has decided a Section 263 application on merits but the limitation defense is raised for the first time on appeal?
What are the proper criteria for considering limitation as a mixed question of law and fact in revocation of probate matters?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an appellate court can set aside a trial court's order on limitation grounds if the plea was not raised or evidence led before the trial court. (Para 11 , 12 )
3. The High Court incorrectly set aside the trial court's order on limitation because the respondents had not raised the issue or provided evidence during the initial proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 )
4. An appellate court cannot set aside a trial court's order based on limitation if no such plea was raised and no evidence was led before the trial court. (Para 15 )
5. High Court order set aside and appeals restored for disposal on merits, specifically excluding the question of limitation. (Para 16 , 17 , 20 )
6. Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before an appellate court to set aside a trial court's order?
No. If no objection regarding limitation was raised before the trial court and no evidence was led on that aspect, the appellate court cannot set aside the order on the ground that the application was hit by limitation. (Para 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Satwanti Devi was the absolute owner of the property in question i.e., a single storied building situated in Bagh Rao Ji, Khasra No. 157/48-51/2, Block A/68, Double Phatak Road, Delhi. She executed a registered will dated 01.01.1991 in favour of Som Prakash (the respondent No.1 herein), her nephew. However, it is alleged that this will dated 01.01.1991 was subsequently revoked through a registered revocation deed dated 26.09.1995. Thereafter, Satwanti Devi is said to have executed another will on 30.01.1996 in favour of Jai Ram (the appellant herein), who was a tenant in the property in question. Satwanti Devi passed away issueless on 30.12.1996.
3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a civil suit in Suit No. 91 of 1997 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant herein in respect of the property in question which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. In the meantime, the appellant filed a Probate Petition bearing No. 136 of 1997 on the basis of the will dated 30.01.1996 and the same was dismissed for default.
4. Later, respondent No.1, on the basis of Will Deed dated 01.01.1991, filed a probate petition No. 382 of 1997 before the Court of District Judge, Delhi. By order dated 01.09.1999, the learned District Judge granted Letters of Administration of the property in question in favour of respondent No.1.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.1 sold the property in question in favour of one Raj Kumar Choudhary in the year 2008. Subsequently, Raj Kumar Choudhary filed a civil suit No. 261 of 2009 seeking possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages against the appellant herein. By judgement dated 03.02.2012, the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of Raj Kumar Choudhary who has thereafter filed an execution petition.
6. During the pendency of this litigation, the appellant claims to have received the summons in the year 2013, at which time he discovered that Letters of Administration had already been granted to respondent No.1 concerning the property in question.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code” for short) in Suit No. 261 of 2009 on 27.02.2013 seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed by order dated 31.10.2019.
8. Thereafter, the appellant also filed an application Misc No. 61012 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Delhi seeking for revocation of Letters of Administration dated 01.09.1999 granted in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of will dated 01.01.1991. The learned District Judge by order dated 20.12.2017 allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “1925 Act”) and revoked the grant of Letters of Administration dated 01.09.1999 in respect of will dated 01.01.1991 in favour of respondent No.1. The learned District Judge held that the will dated 01.01.1991 in favour of respondent No.1 had been revoked by way of a revocation deed dated 26.09.1996 and a second will dated 30.01.1996 was executed by the testator in favour of the appellant herein.
9. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 approached the High Court of Delhi by way of filing FAO No. 223 of 2018. By the impugned order dated 10.10.2022, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 20.12.2017. The High Court observed that the appellant herein filed the revocation application beyond the period of limitation. Hence the instant appeal has been filed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
11. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the District Court on an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 263
