Summary
Article 137 applied to probate and letters-of-administration applications, including Section 228 applications founded on a previously proved will. But the three-year period did not automatically run from the foreign probate date. The right to seek authority to administer remained continuous while the underlying duty survived. On the pleaded facts, interference with the Indian properties after the father’s death made the application necessary, so rejection as plainly time-barred was refused.
Issues
- Whether Article 137 governed applications under Section 228 of the Succession Act.
- Whether limitation necessarily began with the earlier foreign probate.
- Whether the pleaded chronology required rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d).
Held
- Article 137 covered applications for probate or letters of administration, including those under Section 228. The Court did not endorse the proposition that such applications were altogether outside limitation law. (¶ 10–12.1)
- Section 228 enabled reliance on a properly authenticated copy of a will already proved before the specified competent court, without proving it again. That additional route did not make the foreign probate date an automatic limitation trigger. (¶¶ 14–14.1, 17)
- Seeking probate or administration recognised authority to perform the testamentary duty. The right continued while it survived and the trust object or some administration remained unfulfilled, even after prior probate. (¶ 16.1–17)
- The applicant pleaded that interference with the Delhi properties after the father’s death in 2000 compelled the application. The 2001 proceeding was therefore not shown on its pleadings to be clearly time-barred, and threshold rejection was correctly refused. (¶ 18–19)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. Refusal to reject the Section 228 letters-of-administration application under Order VII Rule 11(d) upheld.