Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for Letters of Administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act: Sameer Kapoor vs. The State (29 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 419

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a delay in applying for letters of administration after a will has been probated in a foreign court bar the application in India? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the interpretation of Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The core issue revolved around whether a three-year limitation period applies to applications for letters of administration based on a will already probated abroad. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

Smt. Kailash Kapoor, a resident of England, executed a will on 16 May 1990, bequeathing her assets to her two grandchildren. She passed away in England on 10 September 2001. The appellants, claiming to have acted upon the will, disposed of her immovable properties in India between September 2000 and March 2001. The High Court of Justice, District Probate Registry of Birmingham, England and Wales, issued a probate for the will on 21 November 1997. In 2001, respondent no. 2, who had obtained the probate in England, applied for letters of administration in Delhi under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed an application (I.A. No. 13895 of 2006) before the learned Single Judge of the High Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). They argued that the application for letters of administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Single Judge dismissed this application on 24 September 2008, holding that Section 228 is similar to Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for which no limitation period applies. The appellants then appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, which also dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section allows for the grant of letters of administration based on a will that has already been proved and deposited in a court of competent jurisdiction, whether within or outside India. It states:

  “When a will has been proved and deposited in a Court of competent jurisdiction, situated beyond the limits of the State, whether within or beyond the limits of India, and a properly authenticated copy of the will is produced, letters of administration may be granted with a copy of the will annexed.”

• Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the procedure for applying for probate or letters of administration with the will annexed. It specifies the details that must be included in the petition.

  “276. Petition for probate.—(1) Application for probate or for letters of administration, with the Will annexed, shall be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in the language in ordinary use in proceedings before the Court in which the application is made, with the Will or, in the cases mentioned in sections 237, 238 and 239, a copy, draft, or statement of the contents thereof, annexed, and stating— (a) the time of the testator’s death, (b) that the writing annexed is his last Will and testament, (c) that it was duly executed, (d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner’s hands, and (e) when the application is for probate, that the petitioner is the executor named in the Will.”

• Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article prescribes a limitation period of three years for any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Act.

These provisions operate within the framework of the Indian legal system, ensuring the proper administration of estates and adherence to timelines for legal actions.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to all petitions or applications filed before a Civil Court, including those under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. They argued that while there is no limitation for seeking probate initially, once a probate is granted, any subsequent application, such as for letters of administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, must be filed within three years.
• They submitted that the right to apply under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 accrued on 21 November 1997, when the probate was granted in England. Therefore, the application filed by respondent no. 2 on 28 February 2001, was time-barred.
• The appellants argued that Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is distinct from Section 276 of the same Act. They stated that Section 228 applies only when a will has already been proved in a competent court, whereas Section 276 deals with un-probated wills.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur [(2008) 8 SCC 463], to support their claim that Article 137 applies to petitions for grant of probate or letters of administration.
• They also cited the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Estate of Late Shri Gurcharan Dass Puri [AIR 1987 P&H 122] and the Patna High Court in Ramanand Thakur v. Parmanand Thakur [AIR 1982 Patna 87].

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Respondent no. 2 argued that the decision in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur is not applicable here, as that case dealt with Sections 218/278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, while the present case concerns Sections 228/276.
• The respondent submitted that there was no objection to the probate proceedings in England and that the father of the appellants and respondent no. 2 had given a ‘No Objection’ to the probate.
• It was argued that the respondent was not obligated to apply for letters of administration in Delhi, and that the ‘right to apply’ under Article 137 never accrued against him.
• The respondent contended that the application under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was not barred by limitation, and that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to applications for the grant of probate or letters of administration?
2. Whether an application under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is barred by the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and if so, whether the limitation period starts from the date of grant of probate by a court of competent jurisdiction situated beyond the limits of the State, whether within or beyond the limits of India?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur [(2008) 8 SCC 463] – Supreme Court of India. This case held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to petitions for grant of probate or letters of administration.
• Krishan Kumar Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma [(2009) 11 SCC 537] – Supreme Court of India. This case also affirmed the applicability of Article 137 to applications for probate or letters of administration.
• Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani [AIR 1983 Bom. 268] – Bombay High Court. This case discussed the nature of applications for probate and the accrual of the right to apply.
• S. Krishnaswami v. E. Ramiah [AIR 1991 Mad. 214] – Madras High Court. This case discussed the nature of proceedings for grant of probate or letters of administration.
• Estate of Late Shri Gurcharan Dass Puri [AIR 1987 P&H 122] – Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• Ramanand Thakur v. Parmanand Thakur [AIR 1982 Patna 87] – Patna High Court.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section allows for the grant of letters of administration based on a will that has already been proved and deposited in a court of competent jurisdiction.
• Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the procedure for applying for probate or letters of administration with the will annexed.
• Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article prescribes a limitation period of three years for any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur [(2008) 8 SCC 463]*: Followed to establish that Article 137 applies to probate and letters of administration applications.
• Krishan Kumar Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma [(2009) 11 SCC 537]*: Followed to reiterate the applicability of Article 137.
• Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani [AIR 1983 Bom. 268]*: Approved in part; the court agreed with the conclusion that the application is for the court’s permission to perform a legal duty and is a continuous right, but disagreed with the conclusion that the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of death.
• S. Krishnaswami v. E. Ramiah [AIR 1991 Mad. 214]*: Approved in part; the court agreed with the nature of the petition for grant of probate or letter of administration, but disagreed that it is not covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
• Estate of Late Shri Gurcharan Dass Puri [AIR 1987 P&H 122]*: Not directly discussed but impliedly not followed on the point of limitation.
• Ramanand Thakur v. Parmanand Thakur [AIR 1982 Patna 87]*: Not directly discussed but impliedly not followed on the point of limitation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Continuous Right: The Court emphasized that the right to apply for letters of administration 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.
• Nature of Application: The Court reiterated that an application for probate or letters of administration is not an action in law but is an action in rem, seeking the court’s permission to perform a legal duty.
• Purpose of Section 228: The Court clarified that Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is an enabling provision that confers an additional right to apply for letters of administration based on an authenticated copy of a will already proved in a competent court.
• Cause of Action: The Court held that the cause of action for applying for letters of administration arises when it becomes necessary to apply, not necessarily from the date of probate in a foreign court.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the application for letters of administration under Section 228 is barred by limitation?

Key Takeaways

• Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to applications for letters of administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The limitation period for applications under Section 228 does not automatically begin from the date of probate granted by a foreign court.
• The right to apply for letters of administration is a continuous right, and the limitation period starts when the need to apply arises.
• An application for letters of administration is considered an action in rem, not an action in law.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to applications for letters of administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the limitation period does not start from the date of probate granted by a foreign court. Instead, the right to apply is a continuous right, and the limitation period begins when the need to apply arises. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 228 and its interaction with the Limitation Act, ensuring that applicants are not unfairly barred by limitation due to delays in foreign probate proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application for letters of administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was not barred by limitation. The Court clarified that while Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to such applications, the limitation period does not start from the date of probate in a foreign court. The right to apply is continuous, and the cause of action arises when it becomes necessary to apply.