Probate Revocation Must Be Filed Within Three Years of Knowledge; Ignoring Court Notice Can Amount to Constructive Notice: Supreme Court

Case Name: Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 602

Date of Judgment/Order: May 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that although the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing an application for revocation of probate under Section 263, such an application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and must be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The Court further held that the right to apply accrues when the applicant has knowledge, actual or constructive, of the probate or of proceedings which should reasonably put him on inquiry. Ignoring a court notice in connected mutation proceedings, especially where the notice concerns the same property and is initiated by a competing claimant, may amount to gross negligence and constructive notice.

Summary: The dispute arose from a Will dated July 9, 1989 executed by Smt. Gouriprova Sen, by which the appellant, her nephew, was made the sole executor and beneficiary. Probate was granted to the appellant on September 28, 1995. Later, mutation proceedings were initiated by the appellant in respect of the properties. The respondents, who claimed to be nephews-in-law of the testatrix and surviving members of her husband’s family, admitted that notice in the mutation proceedings was served on them in July 2013, but stated that they ignored it because mutation entries already stood in their favour. In 2019, they filed a suit for declaration and injunction, and in 2022 they filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act seeking revocation of the probate. The Single Judge dismissed the revocation application as time-barred, while the Division Bench allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the respondents’ inaction after receiving court notice could not be treated as conduct of a reasonably prudent person. Since mutation proceedings by a third party over the same property should have led them to inquire into the basis of the appellant’s claim, they were deemed to have constructive notice much earlier than 2019.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, and restored the order of the Single Judge dismissing the respondents’ application for revocation of probate as barred by limitation. The Court held that the respondents’ application filed in 2022 was hopelessly time-barred, as limitation could not be reckoned from 2019 when they claimed actual knowledge; the 2013 mutation notice operated as constructive notice. Pending applications were disposed of, with costs made easy.