Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Piru Manjhi - Appellants
Vs.
Tipu Hansda, S/o Late Luddha Manjhi - Respondent
M. A. No. 617 of 2016
Decided On : 28-01-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Probate and Administration
Act Referred
CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT : S.46, S.46(1)
Headnote
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137 - C.N.T. Act - Section 46(1) - Letters of Administration - Application for Letters of Administration filed after three years from the death of the testator - Court held that the application was barred by limitation as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for such applications. (Paras 4, 10)
(B) Genuineness of WILL - The court emphasized that the trial court's role is to assess the genuineness of the WILL, not the title transfer issues under the C.N.T. Act. (Paras 9)
(C) Limitation for Letters of Administration - The Supreme Court clarified that the absence of a specific limitation period in the Limitation Act does not allow for indefinite delays in filing applications for Letters of Administration. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased testator, who executed a WILL making him a beneficiary. The application for Letters of Administration was filed three years post the testator's death, leading to a dispute over its timeliness.
Findings of Court:
The application for Letters of Administration was barred by limitation, and the trial court's grant was set aside.
Issues: The main issues were whether the application for Letters of Administration was barred by limitation and the relevance of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the application was indeed barred by limitation as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and the genuineness of the WILL was the only concern for the trial court.
Result: Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, Advocate
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad allowing the Letters of Administration Case No.10 of 2014.
2. As per the case of the applicant Tipu Hansda, he was the adopted son of Luddha Manjhi who executed a WILL on 23.04.2010 making the applicant beneficiary to the extent of his share i.e. 1/4th share of the entire property of one Chuti Ram Manjhi. Said Luddha Manjhi died issueless on 04.06.2010 leaving behind the applicant who claims to be the only adopted son of said Luddha Manjhi.
3. The appellants are the agnates of the Testator, Tipu Hansda in whose favour the Letter of Administration has been allowed.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the case of the applicant, Luddha Manjhi died on 04.06.2010, whereas the application for Letter of Administration was filed after three years on 01.04.2014 and was therefore barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat Vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe (Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2010) wherein it has been held that period for limitation in filing Letter of Administration application shall be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted that there is no explanation for the said delay in preferring the Letter of Administration application.
5. It is further argued that the transfer by way of WILL is barred under Section 46(1) of the C.N.T. Act as no permission had been taken for such transfer.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the authority relied upon by the appellant’s side is not on the question of grant of Letter of Administration, rather it was with regard to the period for limitation for filing the revocation application.
7. It is argued that the deceased testator was an employee of BCCL and was also literate, but on the WILL, nowhere signature appears on it, rather at all places it is the LTI which is purported to be affixed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the short question that falls for consideration is whether there is period of limitation for filing a Letter of Administration application and if so the Letter of Administration application was barred by limitation.
9. So far as Section 46 of the CNT Act is considered it is not relevant for grant of Letter of Administration. In a given case it may be relevant for determination of transfer of title by an instrument of sale, gift, WILL etc., but law is settled that question of title is beyond consideration by the Trial Court. Therefore, bar of Section 46 cannot be a ground for rejection of Letter of Administration application. Trial Court is only concerned with the genuineness of a WILL.
10. Although the Limitation Act does not prescribe any period for filing Letter of Administration application, but Hon’ble Supreme Cout has cleared the ambiguity in Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Surendra Manohar Parakhe, (2020) 17 SCC 284 and held that the residuary entry Article 137 of the Act, which covers proceedings for which no period of limitation is stipulated in the Act, provides for a three-year period of limitation will applicable for filing of Letter of Administration application. The Court followed the ratio laid down in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur {(2008) 8 SCC 463}, wherein similar plea was negatived that since the Act prescribed no period of limitation in regard to matters concerning grant of Letter of Administration, therefore such an application can be filed at any point of time without being barred by limitation.
11. Under the circumstance, Letter of Administration was clearly barred by limitation and therefore, the Letter of Administration granted by learned Trial Court is set aside.
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
