Supreme Court settles limitation period for declaration of Will as null and void: Nikhila Divyang Mehta vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi (2025) INSC 485 (15 April 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 15 April 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 485
Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

When does the clock start ticking for a lawsuit seeking to nullify a Will? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., concerning the limitation period for declaring a Will and Codicil as null and void. The dispute arose within a family, specifically between the son and daughters of the deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, regarding the validity of his Will and Codicil. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, delivered a judgment on April 15, 2025, clarifying the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, in such cases.

Case Background:

The case originated from a civil suit filed by Shri Hitesh P. Sanghvi in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against his sisters and nephew, Smt. Harshaben Vijay Mehta, Smt. Nikhila Divyang Mehta, Smt. Ami Rajesh Parikh, and Shri Nilav Divyang Mehta. The suit sought a declaration that the Will dated February 4, 2014, and the Codicil dated September 20, 2014, executed by his deceased father, Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, were null and void. Additionally, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from engaging in any transactions based on the said Will and Codicil.

Shri Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi passed away on October 21, 2014, and the plaintiff claimed that in the first week of November 2014, the defendants informed him about the existence of the Will and Codicil, which came as a surprise to him. The plaintiff contended that the cause of action for the suit arose on three dates: February 4, 2014, when the Will was registered; September 20, 2014, when the Codicil was registered; and October 21, 2014, when his father passed away.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

Defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period. Similar applications were filed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, arguing that the suit was time-barred since it was instituted more than three years after the plaintiff gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil.

The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, allowed the applications and rejected the plaint, holding that the suit was patently barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was filed beyond three years from the date the right to sue first accrued.

The High Court reversed this decision, stating that the parties should have been allowed to present evidence on the issue of limitation and that the plaint could not be rejected in part, considering the other reliefs sought.

Legal Framework:

The primary legal provisions in this case revolve around the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Limitation Act, 1963. Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC allows the court to reject a plaint if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration. It states:

“To obtain any other declaration” the limitation period is “Three years” and “When the right to sue first accrues.”

Section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates that every suit instituted after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, even if limitation has not been raised as a defense.

Arguments:

• Arguments by the Defendants:
• ✓ The suit was barred by limitation as per Order VII Rule 11 CPC because the plaintiff failed to institute the suit within the prescribed period of limitation.
• ✓ The plaintiff had knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, but the suit was filed on November 21, 2017, which is beyond the three-year limitation period.
• ✓ It is the plaintiff’s primary duty to show that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation.
• Arguments by the Plaintiff:
• ✓ The suit was instituted within time, and the parties should be allowed to adduce evidence to prove whether the suit is within time or beyond the period of limitation.
• ✓ Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without allowing the parties to lead evidence.
• ✓ The plaintiff did not have “full knowledge” of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, and the limitation period should reckon from the date of “full knowledge.”
• ✓ The suit claimed different reliefs, and even if the plaint is barred by limitation in respect of one of the reliefs, it cannot be rejected in total.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the suit instituted on November 21, 2017, for the declaration of the Will dated February 4, 2014, and the Codicil dated September 20, 2014, as null and void, is barred by limitation in light of the averments contained in the plaint.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Issue	Court’s Decision	Reason
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?	Yes, the suit is barred by limitation.	The plaintiff had knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, and the suit was filed on November 21, 2017, which is beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Authorities:

• Legal Provisions:
• ✓ Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Allows the court to reject a plaint if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
• ✓ Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Prescribes a limitation period of three years to obtain any declaration from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
• ✓ Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Mandates that every suit instituted after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, even if limitation has not been raised as a defense.

Judgment:

Submission by the Parties	How it was treated by the Court
The suit was instituted within time, and the parties should be allowed to adduce evidence.	Rejected. The court held that based on the plaintiff’s own averments, the suit was filed beyond the limitation period, and no additional evidence was required.
Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without allowing the parties to lead evidence.	Rejected. The court stated that the issue was purely a question of fact based on the admitted facts in the plaint.
The plaintiff did not have “full knowledge” of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, and the limitation period should reckon from the date of “full knowledge.”	Rejected. The court found it a fallacy to distinguish between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” and noted that the limitation period runs from when the cause of action first accrued.
The suit claimed different reliefs, and even if the plaint is barred by limitation in respect of one of the reliefs, it cannot be rejected in total.	Rejected. The court held that the primary relief was to declare the Will and Codicil as null and void, and the other reliefs were dependent on the success of the primary relief.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s own statements regarding the dates of knowledge and cause of action were critical in determining that the suit was time-barred.

Sentiment	Percentage
Plaintiff’s Admission of Knowledge	60%
Cause of Action Arose Earlier	40%

Category	Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case)	70%
Law (Consideration of legal considerations)	30%

Key Takeaways:

• ✓ The limitation period for filing a suit to declare a Will as null and void under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
• ✓ The date of knowledge of the Will is a crucial factor in determining the accrual of the cause of action.
• ✓ Courts can reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the suit is, on the face of it, barred by limitation, based on the plaintiff’s own averments.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the limitation period for challenging a Will begins from the date the plaintiff gains knowledge of the Will, and the suit must be filed within three years of this date. This clarifies the application of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in cases involving the declaration of a Will as null and void.

Conclusion:

In Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods for filing suits. By setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that suits filed beyond the limitation period are liable to be dismissed, based on the plaintiff’s own admissions and without the need for further evidence.

Category:

• Civil Law
  • Limitation Act, 1963
    • Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963
  • Code of Civil Procedure
    • Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure
  • Will and Codicil

FAQ:

1. What is the limitation period to challenge a Will in India?
   The limitation period to file a suit for declaration of a Will as null and void is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues, typically the date when the plaintiff gains knowledge of the Will.
2. What happens if a suit is filed after the limitation period?
   As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit will be dismissed, even if the defendant does not raise the issue of limitation.
3. Can a plaint be rejected if it is barred by limitation?
   Yes, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a court can reject a plaint if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, including the law of limitation.