JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants’ petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in P&SC No.124/2019 on the file of the XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (for short, the ‘Probate Court’) is rejected by the impugned order dated 15.7.2019, and as such, the appellants have filed this appeal.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are the children of Smt.Vijayalakshmi Bhat who died on 17.1.2002 and the appellants’ father late Sri H.Ramesh Bhat died as on 6.10.2015. The appellants have succeeded to the estate of Smt.Vijayalakshmi Bhat who inter alia owned certain assets including the shares of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, formerly M/s Shriram Investments Limited. The appellants, who have succeeded to the estate of Smt.Vijayalakshmi Bhat, would be entitled for issuance of the Succession Certificate in respect of these shares.

Therefore, they have filed petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Probate Court has dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the petitioners have filed the petition more than 17 years after the demise of Smt.Vijayalakshmi Bhat. The cause of action for filing a petition for Succession Certificate accrues on the death of Smt.Viajyalakshmi Bhat and the petition filed beyond 3 years from the date of demise is barred in law because of the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Probate Court could not have dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition is barred by limitation placing reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani vs. Sajni Prem Lalwani reported in AIR 1983 Bombay 268 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this court in B.Manjunatha Prabhu and Others vs. C.G.Srinivas and Others reported in AIR 2005 Kar.136.

4. The questions that arise for consideration is:

(i) Whether the appellants’ application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for issuance of Succession Certificate could have been dismissed by the Probate Court on the ground that such petition is barred by limitation.

(ii) If the Probate Court could not have dismissed the petition on the grounds of limitation, what orders are to be made in this appeal.

5. The Bombay High Court in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani supra while examining the question whether the application for issuance of Letters of Administration could be dismissed on the ground of delay because of the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has held as follows:

“The basic question that arises is whether the 3year period must be computed from the date of the deceased's death as urged by Mr. Dalapatrai. Under the Limitation Act, no period is advisedly prescribed within which a petition for probate or letters of administration or succession certificate must be made after the deceased's death. There is no warrant for the assumption that the right to apply envisaged in Art. 137 necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased. Such an application is to seek the Court's imprimatur to perform a duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee. The right to apply is a continuous right which is capable of being exercised as long as the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed. Gnanamuthu Upadeshi v. Vana Koilpillai Nadan, ILR (1894) Mad 379 (381). Being a continuous right, it can be exercised at any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so exists. The right to apply may therefore accrue not necessarily within 3 years from the date of the deceased's death but when it becomes necessary to apply, which may be any time after the death of the deceased, be it after several years. Of course it need hardly be emphasised that delay in making the application must rightly give cause for suspicion and greater the delay the stronger w