Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, governs petitions for letters of administration under the Indian Succession Act. A petition for grant of letters of administration without obtaining any probate or succession certificate is not maintainable.

1. This is a petition under Secs. 218, 279 and 300 of the Indian Succession Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for the grant of letters of administration for the administration of the estate of late Shri Gurcharan Dass Puri, (Shri G.D. Puri, for short). Shri G.D. Puri died on Nov. 27, 1963, leaving behind his widow Shrimati Sewa Devi, one son Shri Amrit Sagar Puri (hereinafter referred to as Shri A.S. Puri) and six daughters, viz., Mrs. Lily Soni; Mrs. Pushpa Kochhar; Mrs. Santosh Mehra; Mrs. Usha Duggal; Mrs. Prem Kochhar and Mrs. Meena Roy. He died intestate. The present petition for the grant of the letters of administration has been filed on May 4, 1984, i.e., after about twenty years of the death of Shri G.D. Puri. In the written statement filed on behalf of Shri A.S. Puri; Mrs. Lily Soni and Mrs. Santosh Mehra, certain preliminary objections were raised in regard to the limitation and the maintainability of the petition as such. According to them, the petition was mala fide to grab the property to which the petitioners had no right after the death of Shri G.D. Puri, After his death, a family arrangement was arrived at on Dec. 22, 1963, by which it was decided by all his heirs that the entire property left by the deceased would vest only in Shri A.S. Puri and Shrimati Sewa Devi Puri, the widow, and that the daughters would have no interest therein. The said family arrangement was in accordance with the last wishes of Shri G.D. Puri, as dictated by him to Mrs. Meena Roy in the presence of Shrimati Sewa Devi Puri and Mrs. Usha Duggal before his death on Nov. 27, 1963. Thus, the succession was complete on that date and that there was no property left for administration. However, in the replication filed on behalf of the petitioners, those allegations were denied. It was denied that the alleged family arrangement was in accordance with the last wishes of Shri G.D. Puri. The document, if any, was not definitely a will in accordance with the provisions of S.63 of the Act. It was also denied that the succession opened on the date of death of Shri G.D. Puri and became complete then and that there was no property left thereafter for administration. On the question of limitation, it was pleaded that Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, did not apply to the petitions for the grant of letters of administration under the Act. The petitioners also filed a copy of the agreement, along with Annexure A with the replication. Under one of the clauses of the said agreement, Shri A.S. Puri, party No. 3 thereto, was to bear seventy per cent. of the cost of obtaining succession certificate or the letters of administration. On these pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed by this Court on Dec. 4, 1984 : 1. Whether the application for obtaining the letters of administration as such is maintainable ?

2. If so, whether the application is within time ?

The main controversy between the parties is as to whether the petition for obtaining the letters of administration is within time or not. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Limitation Act, 1963 , as such did not apply to such petitions under the Act and, therefore, the present petition could not be held to be barred by time. In support of the contention, the learned counsel retied upon Ramanand V/s. Parmanand, AIR 1982 Patna 87; Kalinath V/s. Nagendra Nath, AIR 1959 Cal 81 and Gnanamuthu Upadesi V/s. Vana Koilpillai Nadan, (1894) ILR 17 Mad 379. On the other hand, Shri D.S. Nehra counsel for the respondents, contended that it was Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , which governed such petitions and that the limitation provided thereunder was three years when the right to apply accrues. According to the learned counsel, the right to apply accrued to the petitioners on the death of Shri G.D. Puri on Nov. 27, 1963. Even if for the sake of arguments, the running of limitation be taken from the agreement annexed to Annexure A , even then the prese