The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an individual who chooses to ignore a formal court notice cannot subsequently plead a lack of knowledge to seek an extension of the limitation period. In a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, the Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court, thereby restoring the order of the learned Single Judge which dismissed an application for the revocation of a probate on the ground of being barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose over properties originally inherited by Smt. Gouriprova Sen as the sole legal heir of her deceased husband, Mr. Amulya Chandra Sen. A portion of these properties was gifted to the appellant, Dhiraj Dutta, by a registered deed (bearing no. 4905 of 1978) dated August 15, 1978. Smt. Gouriprova Sen subsequently executed a Will dated July 9, 1989, wherein she appointed her nephew, the appellant, as the sole executor and beneficiary. Smt. Gouriprova Sen passed away shortly thereafter on October 8, 1989, and the transfer of properties based on this Will formed the genesis of the current litigation.
The appellant’s application for probate of the Will (PLA No. 238 of 1995) was granted by an order dated September 28, 1995. Around 2010-11, the appellant initiated proceedings in O.A. No. 1417 of 2012 before the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Tribunal to make necessary changes in the Revenue Record. According to the appellant, notices regarding these mutation proceedings were served to the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents in July 2013.
The respondents, who are the nephews-in-law of the testatrix and the only surviving members of her husband’s family, asserted that they only discovered the probate in 2019. Consequently, they filed a suit for declaration and injunction (Title Suit No. 60 of 2019), which remains pending before the jurisdictional Court. On July 5, 2022, the respondents filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking the revocation of the probate granted in 1995.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the revocation application on June 16, 2023, holding it to be barred by limitation. However, on appeal, a learned Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the limitation period must be calculated from July 2013, the time when formal notices of the mutation proceedings were served upon the respondents, thereby giving them constructive notice of the probate.
Conversely, the respondents contended that their application was within the limitation period as they only acquired actual knowledge of the probate in 2019. In their application, the respondents admitted that a copy of the original application (O.A. No. 1417 of 2012) was served upon them in July 2013. However, they argued that since their names were already mutated in respect of Smt. Gouriprova Sen’s properties, they chose not to contest the proceedings, which were subsequently dismissed.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not prescribe a limitation period for the grant or revocation of a probate. Consequently, the Court held that recourse must be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year limitation period starting from the date “when the right to apply accrues.”
Referring to the judgments in Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias and Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Surendra Manohar Parakhe, the Court noted that the accrual of the right to apply depends on the date the applying party obtained knowledge.
On the question of whether the 2013 mutation notices constituted constructive notice, the Court analyzed precedents including Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen, and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai. The Court deduced four primary legal facets of constructive notice:
- It is a deeming fiction within law originating from equity, distinct from actual notice, as an legal inference.
- It hinges on either willful abstention or gross negligence.
- The qualification of constructive notice is a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact depending on the circumstances of the case.
- The standard to determine willful abstention or gross negligence is that of a reasonably prudent man under Indian conditions.
Applying these principles, the bench criticized the inaction of the respondents after receiving the 2013 notices. The Court observed:
“It is admitted by the respondents herein that notice was served but it is also a matter of record that they chose not to do anything. This cannot be termed to be the conduct of a reasonably prudent man. If a Court of law has sent someone a notice, the least that can be accepted is for them to make attempts to find out why the same may have been sent to them and what they would be required to do in regard thereto.”
The Court explained that because mutation proceedings do not confer title and the respondents’ enjoyment of the property rested on such entries, a reasonably prudent person would have gone to the root of the matter to discover why a third party was seeking mutation. The Court also pointed out that the respondents’ application remained silent on how their own title was established or how the appellant allegedly threatened them between 2013 and 2019.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court concluded that the service of notice in the mutation proceedings in 2013 constituted constructive notice of the probate. The limitation period under Article 137 began from the day the respondents would have discovered that those proceedings rested on the probate granted to the appellant.
The Court held:
“At any rate, the same would not have been 2019 to fall within the prescribed limitation in 2022. The respondents’ application for revocation of probate would hopelessly be time barred.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Division Bench, and restored the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the application. All pending applications were ordered to be disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 3371 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date: May 29, 2026
