The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 3 of 1998 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit originated as O.P. 88 of 1995 before the District Court, Thrissur, presumably under Sec. 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 originally for the grant of a probate in respect of a Will said to have been executed by one Vareed. Subsequently it was amended as a petition for Letters of Administration under Sec. 278 of the Indian Succession Act. Citations were issued on the O.P. Respondents 1 to 5 to the O.P. after receipt of citations lodged their caveat contesting the matter. Thereupon the O.P. was converted into a regular suit and numbered as O.S. 3 of 1998. The suit for the grant of Letters of Administration was in respect of Ext.A3 Will dated 16-5-1989 executed by Vareed who died of cancer of the throat and tongue on 23-6-1989. Vareed had two daughters in his first wife. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 namely Gracy and Daizy are the said two daughters. After the death of his wife Vareed had married the first defendant Cherupushpam in whom he had begotten four children - three sons and a daughter. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 are the three sons and the 3rd defendant is the daughter. Vareed, the testator had altogether 16 = cents of land and a building thereon comprised in survey No. 890/1 of Ayyanthole Village. The plaintiffs who sought the grant of Letters of Administration, are two of the brothers of deceased Vareed by name Francis and Philipose and the two daughters of Vareed born to his first wife. The names of those daughters are Gracy and Daisy.

2. As per Ext.A3 Will dated 16-5-1989 Vareed purported to make the following bequest:-

9 ½ cents with the house thereon was bequeathed to defendants 1 to 5 as the A schedule thereto. The Will recites that if any excess property was subsequently found in the name of the testator that shall stand allotted to the legatees under the A schedule thereto. Three cents of land was allotted to the 4th plaintiff Daisy as the B schedule thereto, two cents of land was allotted to the 3rd plaintiff Gracy as the C schedule. One cent was alotted to his brother the first plaintiff Francis as the D schedule and the remaining one cent was bequeathed to his other brother the second plaintiff Philippose as the E Schedule to Ext.A3 Will.

3. After the case was converted into a contested matter, 4 witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. P W.1 is the Sub Registrar who registered the instrument. The second plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. The scribe of the instrument was examined as

P.W.3 and the attester to the instrument was examined as P.W.4. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant who is the 2nd wife of Vareed was examined as D.W.1 and a neighbour was examined as D.W.2.

4. The first Addl. District Judge, Thrissur , after trial, as per judgment and decree dated 24-2-2000 came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not been able to adduce satisfactory evidence to show that late Vareed had the capacity to understand the nature and effect of the dispossession and also to prove due execution of Ext.A3 Will. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed. It is the said judgment and decree which are assailed in this Appeal by the plaintiffs.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, namely Defendants 1 to 5 raised a preliminary objection that since O.P. 88/1995 was filed long after the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, the O.P. itself was

hopelessly barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed as such and that, therefore, an examination of the case on the merits is unwarranted. Thereupon both sides were heard on the question of maintainability of O.P. 88/1995.

6. Adv. Sri. N.P. Samuel the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs made the following submissions before me in support of the maintainability of the O.P.:-

No limitation has been prescribed for the filing of a petition for probate or