Supreme Court Restores District Judge's Revocation of Probate and Directs High Court to Decide Appeals on Merits

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard Special Leave Petitions arising from a Delhi High Court decision that set aside a District Court order revoking Letters of Administration granted in respect of a 1991 will. The challenge concerned whether the High Court could overturn the District Judge's revocation of probate on the ground that the revocation application was barred by limitation when that plea was not raised below.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order dated 10.10.2022 and restored FAO Nos. 223/2018 and 239/2018 to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The bench held that the High Court erred in deciding the matter on the question of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act when there was no pleading, issue or evidence on limitation before the District Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. Consequently, in the absence of any averment, no issue was raised and no evidence was let in on that aspect of the matter. 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." The Court further noted that "there was no objection raised to the application being filed by the appellant ... Had such an objection being raised ... evidence would have been let in by the parties."

Background

The dispute concerned a single-storied building in Delhi. Satwanti Devi executed a registered will dated 01.01.1991 in favour of her nephew Som Prakash (respondent No.1). It was alleged that the 1991 will was revoked by a registered revocation deed dated 26.09.1995 and that Satwanti thereafter executed another will dated 30.01.1996 in favour of Jai Ram (the appellant), who was a tenant. Satwanti Devi died issueless on 30.12.1996. Respondent No.1 filed Suit No. 91 of 1997 seeking injunction, which was dismissed as withdrawn; separate probate proceedings followed. Letters of Administration on the basis of the 1991 will were granted to Som Prakash by order dated 01.09.1999. The property was later sold to Raj Kumar Choudhary, who obtained an ex parte decree for possession in 2012. The appellant received notice only in 2013 and, inter alia, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed on 31.10.2019.

The appellant moved Misc. No.61012 of 2016 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking revocation of the Letters of Administration granted in 1999. The District Judge allowed that application on 20.12.2017, holding that the 1991 will had been revoked and that a 1996 will in favour of the appellant existed. Respondent No.1 appealed to the Delhi High Court in FAO Nos. 223/2018 and 239/2018, and the High Court granted the appeal, setting aside the District Judge's order on the ground that the revocation application was time‑barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that limitation had not been pleaded or argued before the District Court and no evidence on limitation had been led; therefore the High Court should not have decided the appeal on that ground. Respondents argued that the limitation point was a jurisdictional bar that the District Court ought to have considered and which the High Court could examine in appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant, holding that in the absence of any objection or pleading on limitation below, the High Court could not reverse the District Court on that basis. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court’s order and directed the High Court to consider the appeals on their merits without going into limitation, reserving all contentions on merits to the parties. The appeals were allowed and disposed of; pending applications stood disposed and no costs were imposed. The High Court was directed to decide the appeals expeditiously.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 227 (SLP (C) Nos. 1073-1074 of 2023) Case Title: Jai Ram v. Som Prakash & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR; Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Harsh Som, Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR; Ms. Kajal Chandra, Adv.; Mr. Hatneimawi, Adv.