LexKUNVARJEET SINGH KHANDPUR versus KIRANDEEP KAUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1057 KUNVARJEET SINGH KHANDPUR A \I. KIRANDEEP KAUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2464 of 2008) APRIL 3, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137 - Petition for grant of probate/letters of administration - Applicability of Article 137 - Held: .ts applicable to such petition - On facts, petition for c grant of letters of administration filed in 2002, when testator died in 1995, not barred by limitation since right to apply actually arose in 1999 when probate proceedings were withdrawn - Hence, petition filed within the limitation period of three years - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - ss. 278 and 232. D ( Indian Succession Act, 1925 - s. 278 - Petition for grant of letters of administration - Nature of- Held: Is to seek Court's permission to perform a legal duty created by Will or for recognition as testamentary trustee - It is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after death of deceased, as E long as the right to do so survives. The testator executed a Will on 09.09.1991. He died on 05.10.95. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 filed petition before the District Judge for grant of probate in respect F of the Will, however, he withdrew the petition on 09.08.99. Respondent no. 1 to 3 were given liberty to file appropriate proceedings. On 07.08.2002, respondent no. 1 to 3 filed petition for grant of letters of administration. Appellant contended that the petition was barred by limitation since it was filed after seven years from the death of the testator. G The District Judge held that the cause of action arose in favour of respondent no. 1 and 3 when the probate petition was withdrawn on 09.08.1998 thus, petition for grant of LOA of Will filed on 07.08.2002 was within the 1057 H 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A limitation period of three years. High Court upheld the order of District Judge holding that Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to proceedings for grant of probate/ Letters of administration. Hence the present appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The crucial expression in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is 'right to apply'. Article 137 is clearly applicable to the petition for grant of Letters of Administration. The High Court rightly observed that in c such proceedings the application merely. seeks recognition from the Court to perform a duty because of the nature of the proceedings it is a continuing right. Though the High Court rightly described the nature of petition, it was not correct in observing that the application 0 for grant of probate or letters of Administration is not covered by Article 137 of the Act. [Paras 14 and 1 i;: [1063-A-B; 1064-A-B] 1.2 An application for grant o:· ~.etters of Administration is for the Court's permission to perform a E legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of ~he trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to F be executed. [Paras 16 and 17] [1064-E-F; 1065-B] 1.3 In view of the factual scenario, the right to apply actually arose on 9.8.1999 when the proceedings were withdrawn by respondent no. 5. Since ~he ?etition was filed within three years, the same was wlti1in time and G therefore the appeal is without merit. [Para 18] [1065-C] The Kera/a State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. TP Kunhaliumma 1976 (4) SCC 634; S.S. Rathore v State of M.P 1989 (4) sec 582 - relied on. H Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v Sajni Prem Lalwani KUNVARJ.EET SINGH KHANDPUR v. KIRANDEEP 1059 ~ KAUR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] AIR 1983 Born. 268; S. Krishnaswami and etc: etc. v. E. A Ramiah.AIR 1991 Madras 214 - approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : _Civil Appeal No. 2464 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2005 of B the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Revision No. 156 of 2005 Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chetan Chopra and Saurabh Sharma for the Appellant. c V. Shekhar, S. Ganesh, Abhigya and N. Annapoorani for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. D ' 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned· >( Single Judge of the Delhi High•Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.