Sub-title:
In Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors., the Supreme Court held that respondents had constructive notice through mutation proceedings initiated in 2013 and could not seek revocation of probate nearly a decade later.
Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment
The revocation of probate limitation ruling clarifies that an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, must comply with the prescribed limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the respondents had constructive notice of the appellant’s claim through mutation proceedings initiated in 2013. Therefore, their application filed in 2022 was time-barred. The Court set aside the Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge’s order.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the judgment on May 29, 2026, in Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute concerned properties inherited by Smt. Gouriprova Sen from her husband, Amulya Chandra Sen. Earlier, she had gifted a portion of the property to the appellant, Dhiraj Dutta, through a registered deed executed on August 15, 1978.
Later, Gouriprova Sen executed a Will dated July 9, 1989, appointing the appellant as the sole executor and beneficiary. She passed away on October 8, 1989.
The competent court granted probate in 1995. Subsequently, the appellant initiated mutation proceedings in 2012.
According to the appellant, the respondents’ predecessor received notices in those proceedings. However, the respondents claimed that they became aware of the probate only in 2019. They then filed a title suit and, in 2022, sought revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
Divergent Findings of the Courts Below
The Single Judge dismissed the revocation application on June 16, 2023, holding that limitation barred the claim.
However, the Division Bench reversed that decision and allowed the appeal. This order led the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
The primary issue before the Court was whether the revocation application filed in 2022 fell within the limitation period.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant argued that limitation started at least in 2013 when the respondents received notices relating to the mutation proceedings.
The respondents contended that they acquired knowledge of the probate only in 2019. Therefore, according to them, the application filed in 2022 remained within the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
The Court noted that the Indian Succession Act does not prescribe a limitation period for revocation of probate. Consequently, Article 137 of the Limitation Act governs such applications.
Supreme Court Examines Constructive Notice
The Bench relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions dealing with limitation and constructive notice in probate matters.
It examined the respondents’ own pleadings and found that they admitted receiving notices in the mutation proceedings in 2013. They also admitted choosing not to contest those proceedings because mutation entries already existed in their favour.
The Court explained that constructive notice operates where a person deliberately abstains from inquiry or acts with gross negligence. It applies the standard of a reasonably prudent person.
Court’s Observations on Respondents’ Conduct
The Bench found that the respondents ignored the notices they had received.
The Court observed:
“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 further noted that the respondents already possessed mutation entries in their favour. Therefore, a reasonably prudent person would have investigated why another party initiated competing mutation proceedings.
The Bench also emphasized that mutation entries do not confer title. It found no satisfactory explanation for the respondents’ inaction between 2013 and 2019.
Revocation Application Held Time-Barred
The Supreme Court held that the mutation proceedings in 2013 gave the respondents constructive notice of the appellant’s claim.
Accordingly, the limitation period began when they could have discovered, through reasonable diligence, that the mutation claim rested on the probate.
The revocation of probate limitation decision concluded that the respondents could not postpone the accrual of their right to apply until 2019. As a result, the application filed in 2022 was hopelessly time-barred.
Final Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge’s order dismissing the revocation application.
The Court directed that all consequential steps should follow. It also disposed of all pending applications and ordered that parties would bear their own costs.
