Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents of all three appeals.

2. First Appeal No.361 of 2001 has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 22.06.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Gopalganj, in Title Suit No.27 of 1987. First Appeal No.375 of 2001 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Gopalganj, in Probate Case No.11 of 1997 and First Appeal No.182 of 2003 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2003 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1992, arising out of Probate Case No.21 of 1990 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Buxar, by which the suit has been allowed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by granting probate to the defendant-appellant.

3. Vide Order No.41 dated 27.02.2020, the Hon’ble Single Bench has formulated a question, i.e., “what would be meaning of accrual of cause of action for the purpose of reckoning the period in the background of intricacies having been referred hereinabove in the context of principle laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove relating to applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 relating to a petition for probate/letter of administration?”.

4. Question has been framed and matter has been placed before the Division Bench after taking permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and only thereafter, these appeals have come before the Division Bench for answering those questions of reference, which we have already acknowledged in Order No.46 dated 17.11.2025 that is to say applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as relating to the starting point of applicability in a petition for probate/letters of administration under Indian Succession Act.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of passing order of reference, Hon’ble Single Judge has categorically observed in the case of Ramanand Thakur vs. Parmanand Thakur, reported in AIR 1982 Patna 87, and held that none of the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable but Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs. Kirandeep Kaur & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 463 as well as in the case of Krishna Kumar Sharma vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 80 (SC) [: 2009 (2) BLJ 166 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to hold that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would be applicable wherein limitation of three years is prescribed so applicability of Limitation Act is found out of controversy. He further submits that the point for consideration is what shall be the cause of action is most fatal whether the date of death of testator or any subsequent date on which interest of executor is found eclipsed. He submits that application of Limitation Act was completely ruled out in the case of Smt. Nalini Mishra & Others vs. Braj Kishore Mishra reported in 2010(4) PLJR 355.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on three judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, namely, Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs. Kirandeep Kaur & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 463 in Civil Appeal No.2464 of 2008 decided on 3rd April, 2008, secondly on the judgment of Krishna Kumar Sharma vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 80 (SC), in Civil Appeal No.1967 of 2009 decided on 27th March, 2009, both by two judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court and third judgment is Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe reported in 2020 (3) BLJ 190-SC in Civil Appeal No.1399 of 2010 decided on 4th of October, 2019. In the said judgment, the judgments of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs. Kirandeep Kaur & Others (supra), Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1977) 1 SCR 996, Sameer Kapoor and Another vs. State through Sub- Divisional Magistrate South, New Delhi and Others, 2019 Online SCC 630 (SC) :: 2019 (4) BLJ 328 (SC) and Lynette Fernandes vs. Gertie Mathias, 2018 (1) BLJ 92