High CourtsDivision Bench

In Re: K. Saroja

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 August 1989 · Citation: (1989) 2 LW 318 : (1990) 1 MLJ 51

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abdul Hadi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 363 words

Abdul Hadi, J.—This original petition is for grant of Letters of administration with the registered will dated 15-6-1977 annexed, which was

executed by the deceased V.S. Ranganatha Chariar, who died on 9-12-1981, leaving three daughters, one of whom is the petitioner, who is the

sole legatee under the will. The said other daughters have filed consent affidavits. Attestator''s affidavit has been filed. All the other formalities have

also been complied with. None has entered caveat.

2.

However, since the deceased died in 1981 itself, I had a doubt whether the petition was out of time and whether Article 137 of the Limitation

Act would apply in view of the decision reported in The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, , holding that the said

Article would apply to any petition or application filed under any Act and need not necessarily be a petition for application filed under the Civil

Procedure Code, alone, as was the case in the corresponding residuary Article under the old Limitation Act. So Article 137 would apply to a

petition for Probate or Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act. But, the learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to

the decision reported in Ramanand v. Paramanand AIR 1982 Pat. 88, wherein it was held that though Article 137 applies, the time would not

begin to run under the said Article in the case of a petition for grant of probate or Letters of Administration, because in such a case, right to apply

accrued every day and the cause of action for the application arises every moment so long as the Will remains unprobated. Therefore, the limitation

question will not arise in such a petition or application for Probate or Letters of Administration. A similar decision reported in the matter of Estate

Gurucharandas Puri AIR 1987 P&H 122, was also brought to may notice. In view of these decisions, I hold that the limitation question would not

arise in such a case.

3.

In the circumstances, issue Letters of Administration with the said will annexed in favour of the petitioner, on her executing a bond for Rs. 5,000

with one surety for a like sum.