The Supreme Court has ruled that a plea seeking cancellation of a probate granted nearly three decades ago was filed too late and could not be entertained. The Court held that parties who received notices related to property proceedings but chose not to inquire further could not later claim lack of knowledge to overcome the law of limitation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal filed by Dhiraj Dutta and restored an earlier order dismissing the revocation application as time-barred.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces its roots to properties originally owned by Amulya Chandra Sen. After his death, the properties were inherited by his wife, Gouriprova Sen. During her lifetime, she gifted a portion of the properties to her nephew, Dhiraj Dutta.
Gouriprova Sen executed a Will on July 9, 1989, appointing Dhiraj Dutta as the sole executor and beneficiary. She passed away a few months later, on October 8, 1989. Probate of the Will was granted in Dutta’s favour on September 28, 1995.
Years later, proceedings were initiated to update revenue records. According to Dutta, notices were served on the predecessors of the respondents during these mutation proceedings. The respondents, however, claimed they became aware of the probate only in 2019 and subsequently filed a civil suit regarding the property dispute. In 2022, they moved an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act seeking revocation of the probate.
Earlier Court Orders
A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the revocation application in June 2023, holding that it was barred by limitation. However, a Division Bench later reversed that finding and permitted the challenge to proceed.
This led Dhiraj Dutta to approach the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court noted that while the Indian Succession Act does not prescribe a limitation period for seeking revocation of probate, such applications are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date when the right to apply accrues.
The central issue before the Court was whether the respondents acquired knowledge of the probate only in 2019, as claimed by them, or whether they ought to be treated as having knowledge much earlier.
The Bench examined the respondents’ own admission that notices had been served on them in 2013 in connection with mutation proceedings initiated by Dhiraj Dutta. Although they chose not to participate in those proceedings, the Court held that such conduct could not be ignored.
The Bench observed:
“If a Court of law has sent someone a notice, the least that can be accepted is for them to make attempts to find out why the same may have been sent to them and what they would be required to do in regard thereto.”
The Court explained that a reasonably prudent person would have investigated the basis of the proceedings, particularly when property rights were involved. It further stated that ignoring court notices and remaining inactive could not later be used as a ground to claim absence of knowledge.
Referring to principles governing "constructive notice," the Court held that the respondents should be deemed to have been aware of facts that they could have discovered through reasonable diligence.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the notices received during the mutation proceedings constituted constructive notice. As a result, the respondents could not rely on their claim of discovering the probate only in 2019.
Holding that the application filed in 2022 was well beyond the permissible limitation period, the Court ruled that the revocation plea was “hopelessly time barred.” It therefore set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the order of the Single Judge dismissing the application.
The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 3371 of 2026
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Decision Date: May 29, 2026
