The judgment established that the limitation for filing a revocation petition commences from the date of grant of probate and cannot be extended based on subsequent correspondence or lack of knowledge of alleged fraud.

1. By this petition, petitioners seek that the probate granted by this court on 30th December, 1996 in Probate Petition No. 214 of 1994 of the deceased Vithal Shyamdas Jhaveri be revoked. Respondent at the outset raised issue of limitation in filing this Misc. Petition. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding issue of limitation raised by the petitioners are as under:-

2. The respondent is claiming to be the sole executor viz. in the Will and testament dated 12th October, 1992. Respondent had filed a petition bearing Petition No.214 of 1994 in this court inter alia praying for the last Will and Testament of the said deceased. It is case of the petitioner no.1 that petitioner no.1 is a daughter of the said deceased and petitioner no.2 is the widow of the said deceased. Mr.Akhil Vithal Jhaveri is claiming to be son of the said deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners were the legal heirs of the said deceased, the citation was not served upon the petitioners and without service of citation, the respondent has obtained probate in respect of the Will and Testament of the deceased dated 12th October, 1992.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the letter dated 16th November, 2000 which was addressed by the advocate of the respondent to the advocate of the petitioners in response to the notice dated 7th November, 2000. The respondent in the said letter informed the petitioners through their advocate that the said deceased Mr.Vithal Shyamdas Jhaveri expired in Mumbai 10th December, 1992 leaving behind a Will in respect whereof the probate had already been granted by this court. The respondent denied the allegations made by the petitioners in their advocates' letter dated 7th November, 2000.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the letter dated 20th December, 2000 addressed by the advocate of the petitioners to the advocate of the respondent in reply to the letter dated 16th November, 2000. In the said letter the petitioner reiterated what was stated in the notice of 7th November, 2000 and stated that denial of the statements made in the said notice of 7th November, 2000 in the letter dated 16th November, 2000 were false, mischievous and fraudulent. By the said letter, the petitioners called upon the advocate of the respondent to furnish a copy of the probated Will alongwith papers and proceedings in the matter thereof. It is case of the petitioners that inspite of the said letter dated 20th December, 2000, the respondent did not furnish any copy of the probated Will to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also tendered a copy of the letter dated 29th July, 2011 addressed to the advocate of the respondent by the advocate of the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were not aware of any purported Will and by letter dated 20th December, 2000 had called upon the respondent to furnish a copy of the purported probated Will alongwith papers and proceedings relating to the matter, however, the respondent had failed to provide a copy of the purported Will and/or papers and proceedings in the matter. It is stated in the letter that one of the petitioners thereafter instructed the advocate to search for papers and proceedings in respect of the probate.

6. It is stated that since no details were available, no such alleged probate could be traced. It is further stated that Mrs.Uma Jhaveri, the daughter of the said deceased and Mrs.Meena Jhaveri, widow of the said deceased thereafter visited India in July 2004 and made enquiries with the siblings of the respondent about the purported proceedings and purported Will. It is alleged that the siblings of the respondent informed the petitioners that they had no knowledge and were not aware of any purported Will left by the said deceased. The advocate of the petitioners thereafter made further enquiries and tried to trace the papers but could not be t