Probate grants are judgments in rem, triggering a strict three-year limitation period for revocation, with knowledge of the grant not resetting this period. There was no evidence of fraud or procedural illegality to justify condonation of delay beyond this limit.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the Appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri condoning over twelve years of delay, reject Revocation Misc. Case No. 148 of 2016 as time barred under Article 137, and uphold the finality of the 2002 probate grant.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The present First Appeal is instituted under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, assailing the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the District Judge, Puri in Revocation Misc. Case No. 148 of 2016, whereby delay of more than twelve years was condoned and the revocation petition directed against the Letters of Administration granted on 08.04.2002 in Probate Misc. Case No. 25 of 1998 (Old No. 10 of 1996) was admitted for hearing.

(ii) The revocation proceedings were initiated by the respondents, who claim to be the legal heirs of Late Rajkishore Jena, son of the testator Late Sarbeswar Jena @ Sarbananda Das @ Guruji. The respondents pleaded that they became aware of the probate order on 08.10.2014 upon inquiry with the Revenue Inspector and thereafter ascertained that Probate Misc. Case No. 10 of 1996 had been filed by one Manmohan Jena, asserting himself to be the Chela of the testator and Marfatdar of a deity associated with an alleged Matha.

(iii) The respondents asserted that the Will dated 21.10.1995, forming the basis of the probate, was fraudulent, and that the testator was not in a condition to execute it before his death on 04.11.1995. They alleged that in the original probate proceedings no general or special citations were issued, no notice was served on the legal heirs or local authorities, and that mandatory procedural requirements under the Succession Act were not complied with.

(iv) According to the respondents, Late Sarbeswar Jena had purchased land in Mohinipur in the late 1960s, constructed a residence, lived there, and cultivated land. They contended that the family continued visiting the property and paying land revenue and that the land remained recorded in his name for several years.

(v) Upon discovering the probate order, the respondents filed CMA No. 247 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri seeking revocation. The said CMA was dismissed on 05.07.2016 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act and judicial precedent. Thereafter, on 27.07.2016, the respondents filed Revocation Misc. Case No. 148 of 2016 before the District Judge, along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(vi) The appellant opposed the condonation of delay, stating that the probate had been granted after publication and proclamation, including beat of drum and newspaper notice, and that the respondents were aware of the proceedings earlier as they used to visit the property and access land records. The appellant also stated that the probate was a judgment in rem, granted in 2002, under which the appellant and his predecessor had managed the Matha property for over two decades.

(vii) After hearing both sides, the District Judge held that the respondents had sufficiently proved that they acquired knowledge of the probate order only on 08.10.2014, and, having acted promptly thereafter, the delay deserved to be condoned. Consequently, the revocation petition was admitted for adjudication.

(viii) The appellant earlier challenged the condonation order in W.P.(C) No. 10431 of 2024. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that an appeal under Section 299 of