Suit Over Father's Will and Codicil Dismissed as Time-Barred: Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision.


15 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Will's, Codicil's & Agreements >> Personal Law  

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. Vs Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., has overturned a High Court order and reinstated the decision of a lower court to reject a civil suit seeking to nullify a Will and Codicil executed by the plaintiff's late father. The apex court found the suit to be clearly barred by the law of limitation, based on the plaintiff's own statements in the plaint.

The case originated from a suit filed by Shri Hitesh P. Sanghvi in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in November 2017. Sanghvi sought a declaration that the Will dated February 4, 2014, and the Codicil dated September 20, 2014, executed by his deceased father, Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, were null and void. He also sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants – his three sisters and a grandson – from acting upon the said testamentary documents.

According to the plaint, Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi passed away on October 21, 2014. In the first week of November 2014, the defendants informed the plaintiff about the existence of the Will and Codicil. The plaintiff himself stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on three dates: the registration of the Will (February 4, 2014), the registration of the Codicil (September 20, 2014), and the date of his father's death (October 21, 2014), when he allegedly came to know about the documents.

 

 

Subsequently, one of the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not filed within the prescribed limitation period. Similar applications were filed by other defendants. The trial court, upon examining the plaint's averments, concluded that the plaintiff gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014. Applying Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for declarations not specifically covered elsewhere, the trial court held that the suit, filed on November 21, 2017, was time-barred and accordingly rejected the plaint.

However, the High Court reversed this order, opining that the parties should have been allowed to present evidence on the issue of limitation and that the plaint could not be rejected entirely as it sought other reliefs besides the declaration.

The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal against the High Court's decision, focused on whether the suit was indeed barred by limitation based on the plaint's content. The Court noted that the primary relief sought was the declaration of the Will and Codicil as null and void, with the permanent injunction being a consequential relief dependent on the success of the primary claim.

Referring to Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the Supreme Court emphasized that the three-year limitation period commences from "when the right to sue first accrues." Based on the plaintiff's own statements, the cause of action arose no later than the first week of November 2014, when he gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil. Consequently, the limitation period expired in the first week of November 2017. The suit, filed on November 21, 2017, was therefore clearly beyond the prescribed period.

The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which requires courts to dismiss any suit instituted after the limitation period, even if the defense of limitation is not raised.

Addressing the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the distinction drawn between "having knowledge" and "full knowledge" as a "complete fallacy." The limitation period begins when the cause of action first arises, and the plaintiff himself had stated that this occurred no later than November 2014. The Court also rejected the argument that the existence of other reliefs prevented the rejection of the plaint. It clarified that since the primary relief of declaring the Will and Codicil void was time-barred, the dependent ancillary reliefs could not stand.

In its final order, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decision, thereby rejecting the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.