DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Introduction:

1. The controversy concerns a will-testament-and the parties are Christians. One of the legal heirs to the testator wanted letters of administration. It was opposed. In this first appeal, only two issues arise: Do the statutes of limitation apply to the proceedings under section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (“the Act”)? Is the amendment to section 213 of the Act prospective or retrospective? Granted that both are pure questions of law, we propose to refer to the facts only for contextualising the controversy.

Facts:

2. One Yohannan, the common ancestor, died testate on 24 October 1978. He executed his last will on 24 June 1974, after executing and cancelling a series of wills-at least four times. Yohannan was survived by two daughters, whose children now fight for his estate. That is, the succession dispute involves his grandchildren and their children.

3. Chellamma John, the wife of Yohannan’s one of the grandsons, and her children filed OP (LA) No. 290 of 1996 claiming the letters of administration; they base their claim on Yohannan’s registered will No. 34 of 1974. Later, the original petition was renumbered as OS No. 3 of 99 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kottayam. The 14 defendants included Jacob@Kurian [In another appeal-RSA No.94 of 2004-between the same parties in ninth respondent described himself Jacob; in this appeal, he was described as Kurian @Jacob. For uniformity’s sake, we refer to him as Jacob.] as the ninth respondent; he alone contested the case.

4. Jacob’s principal contention was that Yohannan died intestate. On the questions of law, he maintained that the proceedings for the letters of administration were proscribed-barred by limitation. He also contended, alternatively, that if it all Yohannan had executed a will, it was under duress.

5. The Trial Court, through its judgment dated 23 January 2001, decreed the suit: that the will is genuine and that Chellamma John and her children can have the letters of administration. Aggrieved, Jacob filed this first appeal.

Submissions:

Appellant’s:

6. Sri Mathew John, the learned counsel for the appellant, has fairly given up his contentions on the merits: the genuineness of the will. But he strenuously canvassed his twin pleas-that the suit was hit by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that Chellamma John and others failed to fulfil the conditions stipulated under section 213 of the Act.

Respondents’:

7. The respondents supported the impugned judgment and maintained that they should have the letters of administration. Amicus curiae:

8. On the questions of limitation and of amendment-whether the amended section 213 affects prospectively or retrospectively-we noticed some precedential ambivalence. So we requested Dr. Sebastian Champappilly, an advocate and author on Christian laws, to assist the Court. Besides making elaborate submissions, Dr.Sebastian submitted a 16-page note, covering both the legal aspects.

9. On the question of limitation, Dr. Sebastian contends that the period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for probate or letters of administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He maintains that this period runs from the time “the right to apply accrues,” which is not necessarily from the date of death of the testator, as the right to apply for probate or letters of administration is a continuing right. And the starting point is the happening of an event.

10. Drawing our attention to the amended section 213 of the Act, Dr. Sebastian has submitted that the amendment has taken the Indian Christians out of the rigours of that section. There is no longer, according to Dr. Sebastian, any prohibition against an Indian Christian asserting his rights under a will without obtaining probate or letters of administration.

11. Heard Sri Mathew John, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajeev v. Kurup, the learned counsel for the respo