Advocates:
['K CH GAUTAM', '', 'R KHARSHIING', 'CB SAWIAN', 'F LANGBNANG']

1

Serial No. 03

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

CRP No. 12 of 2022

Date of Decision: 18.08.2022

Smti. Bernadeth Marwein

Vs.

Smti. Cynthia Khongwet

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :

Ms. R. Kharshiing, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

:

i)

Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii)

Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1.

This Revision Application under Rule 6 of the High Court of

Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014 read

with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning

2

the order dated 01.02.2022, passed in Succession Misc. Case No. 96 of

2011, by the Court of the Learned Judge, District Council Court,

Shillong, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section

383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was dismissed on the ground that

the said application was time barred.

2.

Though the sole respondent, as per the office note had been

served on 24.05.2022, no appearance had been made on her behalf on

successive dates, and as such, this matter is being taken up ex-parte

against the sole respondent.

3.

Ms. R. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the impugned order was passed in the proceedings of Succession

Misc. Case No. 96 of 2011, wherein the dispute was between the

petitioner and the respondent who both claimed to be the legally wedded

spouse of one (L) Morningstar Wanshong, and as such, entitled to his

terminal benefits. It is further submitted that, the said tussle started from

2010, when the first objection was filed by the petitioner against the

application of the respondent for grant of Succession Certificate.

Thereafter, it is submitted on the failure of the petitioner to appear a

Succession Certificate dated 15.07.2016, was granted to the respondent

which was then, sought to be revoked by the petitioner by way of an

application dated 09.05.2019.

3

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as the Indian

Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe a specific period of limitation,

the same, would be covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which

prescribes a period of 3(three) years, from when the right to apply

accrues. In the instant case, she submits the application for revocation

was filed within 3(three) years of issuance of the Succession Certificate

dated 15.07.2016 by the petitioner, and as such, the rejection of the

application was bad in law. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the

judgment of Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Surendra Manohar Parakhe

reported in (2020) 17 SCC 284.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the

impugned order. Shorn of other details and facts, the only issue that is to

be considered by the Court is whether the learned Court below had erred

in rejecting the application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession

Act, 1925 on the ground that the same was time barred. Article 137 of

the Limitation Act, provides for 3(three) years as a period of limitation,

on an application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere

in the division. As the Succession Act, does not prescribe a specific

period of limitation in such matters, it would thus imply that Article 137

be applied. The Succession Certificate sought to be revoked having been

granted on 15.07.2016, the application for revocation being filed on

4

09.05.2019 is within the 3(three) year period, and as such, should not

have been rejected on the ground of limitation.

6.

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel that is Ramesh

Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Surendra Manohar Parakhe (supra) at Para-12

reads as follows:

<12. The Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe