The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to probate proceedings, emphasizing the three-year limitation period from the date the right to apply for probate accrues.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 19.6.2019 passed in Judicial Misc. Case No.69 of 2018 in Original Suit (Probate) No.1 of 2017 on the file of the learned district Judge, Imphal East. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the first defendant in the Original Suit (Probate).

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the first respondent is the first defendant in the Original Suit (Probate).

3. The first defendant has filed Judicial Misc. Case No.69 of 2018 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act praying to reject/dismiss the application of the plaintiff for grant of probate of the will left by Late Huidrom Bira singh, who died on 16.01.1994 stating that the alleged Will of which probate was sought purports to make a gift of a plot of land measuring 65 x 130 feet with building constructed thereon covering 70 x 65 feet in favour of Huidrom Ajit singh, who is the beneficiary of the Will left by his father H. Bira Singh.

4. According to the first defendant, the above said plot of land was the subject matter of a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.II, Manipur East, instituted by Huidrom Ongbi Ibemhal Devi, wife of late H. Bira Singh and others including H.Ajit Singh for declaration that they are entitled to get share in the suit land. The plaintiff Thounaojam (N) Huidrom (O) Shantibala Devi is the wife of H.Ajit Singh. By judgment dated 30.5.2006, the said suit was decreed and there was no appeal preferred by any aggrieved party. However, after a delay of 3830 days from the date of judgment, the legal heirs of H.Ajit Singh instituted a fresh suit being O.S.No. 43 of 2016 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East for declaration of title to the same plot of Iand involved in the previous suit.

5. The first defendant contested the said suit and had also filed application being Judl. Misc. No.155 of 2017 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the said suit is barred by principles of res judicata. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 12.9.2017, thereby dismissing the suit O.S.No.43 of 2016. Pending Judl. Misc. No.155 of 2017, the plaintiff has filed application for grant of probate. As against the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.43 of 2016, the plaintiffs therein have preferred appeal and the same is pending.

6. According to the first defendant, the application for probate does not disclose a cause of action and the same was filed beyond three years from the date when the right to apply accrues as provided under Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the probate is liable to be rejected.

7. The plaintiff filed objection to Judl. Misc. Case No.62 of 2018 stating that it is the Will which was presented before the Hon'ble Court for probate and for subsequent order for Letter of Administration under Section 176 and 178 of Indian Succession Act. It is incorrect to say that the plot of land was a gift to the last son of the testator. Further, H. Ajit Singh was not the direct beneficiary of the Will and the beneficiaries are Shri Shri Govindajee Seva Committee as nominated by the testator in the Will itself. Since the Will existed before filing of O.S. No.20 of 2005, the same was to be preferential over other findings. There can be no bar by Limitation Law in the case of probate under the circumstances of the facts. In such circumstances, the plaintiff prayed to proceed with the findings of the new facts for the end of justice.

8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by both sides, the Court below, by the impugned order, held that the application for granting Probate or Letter of Administration of the Will dated 26.8.1993 is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts and accordingly, disposed of the Judl, Misc. Case. Aggrieved by th