1981 (12) TMI 184 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Limitation period for filing a probate application under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963.
- Interpretation of the term "application" under Article 137.
- Determining the starting point for computing the limitation period for a probate application.

Analysis:

The judgment in question involves a probate proceeding concerning the grant of probate of a will. The objector, who is the petitioner, raised an objection that the probate application was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963, as it was filed beyond the prescribed three-year period. The District Judge, relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court, rejected this plea, leading the objector to appeal to the High Court.

Article 137 of the new Limitation Act is compared to its predecessor, Article 181, to highlight significant modifications in language and classification. The court notes that Article 137, as a residuary article, governs "other applications," indicating a broader scope beyond applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment discusses the evolution of the definition of "application" in the context of special laws, emphasizing the intention to include petitions under various statutes.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala S. E. Board v. T. P. Kunhaliumma, the High Court acknowledges a shift in the interpretation of Article 137 to encompass applications beyond the Civil Procedure Code. However, the crucial issue addressed is the determination of the starting point for computing the limitation period for a probate application. The court rejects the argument that the starting date should be the death of the testator, asserting that the right to apply for probate accrues continuously as long as the will remains unprobated. This interpretation aligns with the view that there is no specific limitation period for probate applications.

Ultimately, the High Court rules that probate applications are not governed by any specific article of the Limitation Act. The application in question is dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs. This decision underscores the continuous accrual of the right to apply for probate and clarifies the non-applicability of a specific limitation period in such cases.