RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT versus DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 04-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT
v.
DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE
(Civil Appeal No.1399 of 2010)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN
AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925: s. 263 – Revocation or annulment of
grant of probate, or letters of administration – On facts, grant of
letters of administration in ancillary proceedings to the attorney
of the original executor’s successor in 1994 by the High Court –
Relative of deceased’s husband filed for notice of motion in 1997
and withdrew it the next year and the year thereafter filed petition
for revocation of the letters of administration – Appellant’s case
that they became aware of the grant of letters of administration
only when the properties were sought to be mutated in the revenue
records, pursuant to the letters granted – Rejection of the
application for revocation of letters of administration granted to
the LOA holder in respect of the Will of deceased, by the courts
below – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Article 137 of
the Limitation Act, which covers proceedings for which no period
of limitation is stipulated in the Act, provides for a three–year
period of limitation – Article 137 applies to proceedings of letter
of administration and grant of probate – On facts, petition for
revocation of letters of administration filed in the year 1999 was
time barred, given that the original grant of letters of administration
took place in 1994 which constituted notice to all concerned –
Limitation Act, 1963 – Art. 137.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe
a specific period of limitation for the grant of probate, or for
moving an application for cancellation of probate or letters of
administration. The residuary entry Article 137 of the Limitation
Act, which covers proceedings for which no period of limitation
is stipulated in the Act, provides for a three–year period of
limitation. [Para 12] [666-A-B]
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 658
658
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
1.2 In the instant case, the letters of administration were
granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994. The High Court
took note of the fact that the notice of motion (in the disposed
of proceeding) was filed on 29.03.1997; it was withdrawn on
01.04.1998. The petition for revocation of the letters of
administration were filed on 29.7.1999. Proceedings were clearly
time barred, given that the original grant of the ancillary letters
took place on 25.11.1994; they constituted notice to all
concerned. Clearly, the petition for revocation of letters of
administration was time barred. Thus, there is no infirmity in the
concurrent findings impugned. [Para 17] [669-B-C]
Rukminidevi v. Narendra Lal Gupta, (1985) 1 SCC
144 ; Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur
& Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 463 : [2008] 5 SCR 1057 ;
Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P.
Kunhaliumma [1977] 1 SCR 996 Sameer Kapoor and
Another v. State through Sub–Divisional Magistrate
South, New Delhi and Others, (2019) Online SCC 630
(SC) ; Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias  (2018) 1
SCC 271 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1985) 1 SCC 144
referred to
Para 7
[2008] 5 SCR 1057
referred to
Para 13
[1977] 1 SCR 996
referred to
Para 13
(2018) 1 SCC 271
referred to
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1399
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2007 of the  High
Court of  Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 1183 of 2001.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Devansh Gandhi, Siddharth Dias, Umrao Singh Rawat,
Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Advs. for the Respondents.
RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v.
DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This appeal by special leave questions the decision of the
Bombay High Court affirming the rejection of an application for
revocation of letters of administration granted to the respondent,
(hereafter “the LOA holder”), in respect of the will of deceased Mrs.
Antoinette Bendre Bhagwat (hereafter “Antoinette”).
2. Antoinette was the wife of Balaji Balwant Bhagwat (hereafter
“Balaji”). The couple were permanent residents of California, US and
were US citizens. Balaji predeceased Antoinette, bequeathing all
properties to her. She died on 23.1.1981 at Alhambra, Los Angeles
County, California. U.S.A. In her last will dated 24.6.1977, she
b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.