Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
In Absence Of Limitation Plea, HC Couldn’t Have Set Aside District Court’s Order On Ground That Revocation Application Under Succession Act Was Hit By Article 137 Of Limitation Act: SC
|The Apex Court was considering an Appeal against a Delhi High Court order whereby it was held that the appellant's application under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed beyond the period of limitation.
The Supreme Court recently held that the Delhi High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the District Court on the ground that the application filed by the appellant under the Succession Act for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration was hit by Article 137 of the Limitation Act in the absence of plea or evidence on the issue of limitation.
The Apex Court was considering an Appeal against a Delhi High Court order whereby it was held that the appellant filed the revocation application under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 beyond the period of limitation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “But, in the absence of such a plea or evidence on the issue of limitation, the High Court could not have set aside the order of the District Court.”
AOR Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Sanjeev Anand represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
One Satwanti Devi was the absolute owner of the property in question i.e., a single-storied building situated in Delhi. She executed a registered will in favour of Som Prakash (respondent No.1), her nephew. However, it was alleged that this Will was subsequently revoked through a registered revocation deed. Thereafter, Satwanti Devi was said to have executed another will in 1996 in favour of Jai Ram (appellant herein), who was a tenant in the property in question. Satwanti Devi passed away issueless.
The Respondent filed a civil suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant in respect of the property in question which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. In the meantime, the appellant filed a Probate Petition on the basis of the will of 1996 and the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, respondent No.1, on the basis of a Will of 1991, filed a probate petition before the Court of District Judge. The District Judge granted Letters of Administration of the property in question in favour of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 sold the property in favour of one Raj Kumar Choudhary. Choudhary filed a civil suit seeking possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages against the appellant. The suit was decreed ex parte in favour of Choudhary who thereafter filed an execution petition.
During the pendency of this litigation, the appellant claimed to have received the summons in the year 2013. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the appellant also filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the District Judge seeking for revocation of Letters of Administration granted in favour of respondent No.1 and the same was allowed. The respondent’s appeal before the Delhi High Court was allowed with the observation that the appellant filed the revocation application beyond the period of limitation. Hence the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that there was no objection raised to the application being filed by the appellant herein under Section 263 of the 1925 Act as being hit by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. As per the Bench, had such an objection being raised by the respondents expressly possibly the District Court would have raised the issue in that regard and evidence would have been let in by the parties. However, in the absence of such a plea raised by the respondents herein, the District Court proceeded to consider the application filed under Section 263 on its merits and allowed the said application.
It was further noticed that being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein preferred the appeals before the High Court. “We find that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the District Court on the ground that the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 263 of the 1925 Act was hit by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and thereby setting aside the order of the District Court passed on the application filed by the appellant herein. This is more so because there was no objection raised by the respondents herein before the District Court”, it said.
It was observed by the Court that in the absence of any averment, no issue was raised and no evidence was let in on that aspect of the matter. The Bench thus stated that in the absence of such a plea or evidence on the issue of limitation, the High Court could not have set aside the order of the District Court.
Thus, setting aside the order of the High Court, the Bench ordered, “The High Court is requested to consider the said appeals purely on merit and without going into the question of limitation as there is no pleading on this aspect and consequently no issue raised or evidence being let in before the District Court.”
Cause Title:Jai Ram v. Som Prakash & Anr. Etc. [Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 227]
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advocates Aarti U. Mishra, Harsh Som
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Anand, AOR Sanjay Jain, Advocates Kajal Chandra, Mr. Hatneimawi