Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Under Article 58: Suit Challenging Will Filed Beyond Three-Year Period Barred

Posted On - 25 April, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Summary:

[1]This Supreme Court ruled on whether a 2017 suit challenging a 2014 Will and Codicil was time- barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff, Sanghvi, claimed he learned of the documents in November 2014, but filed suit over three years later. The Court held that the suit was indeed time-barred, as the limitation period began when the right to sue first accrued, which was either at the execution of the documents or when Sanghvi gained knowledge of them. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that evidence was needed, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s own pleadings demonstrated the suit was filed beyond the three-year limit. As the primary relief was barred, ancillary reliefs were also unenforceable.

Facts:

  • The plaintiff, Hitesh P. Sanghvi, son of the deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, filed a civil suit against his sisters (defendants) and a grandson seeking:
  • Declaration that the Will dated 04.02.2014 and the Codicil dated 20.09.2014 executed by his late father were null and void.
  • Permanent injunction restraining defendants from acting under the Will   and Codicil.
  • The deceased died on 21.10.2014.
  • The plaintiff alleged that he only came to know about the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014.
  • The suit was instituted on 21.11.2017.
  • Defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
  • The trial court rejected the plaint, holding the suit was filed after the three-year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  • The High Court reversed this order, allowing the suit to proceed to trial on merits, reasoning that evidence should be allowed on the limitation issue.

Issues:

  1. Whether the suit filed on 21.11.2017 challenging the Will and Codicil executed in 2014 was barred by limitation?
  2. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for being time- barred on the face of the record?

Held:

  • The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for declarations other than those covered by Articles 56 and 57.
  • The limitation period runs from the date when the right to sue first accrues, which was either the date of execution of the Will (04.02.2014), the Codicil (20.09.2014), the death of the testator (21.10.2014), or at the latest, the date when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil (first week of November 2014).
  • Since the suit was filed on 21.11.2017, beyond the three-year limitation period, it was ex- facie barred by limitation.The plaint was rightly liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without the need for evidence on limitation.
  • The Court rejected the argument that “full knowledge” was required to start limitation, holding that knowledge of the Will and Codicil was sufficient to trigger limitation.

Analysis:

The Court emphasized that limitation is a matter of law and can be decided on the face of the plaint if the facts are admitted. Article 58 of the Limitation Act was applicable as the suit sought a declaration other than forgery or adoption. The plaintiff’s own pleadings admitted the cause of action arose and knowledge was acquired well before the suit was filed. Section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates dismissal of suits filed after the prescribed period, even if limitation is not pleaded as a defense. The Court clarified that the distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” is legally unsound for limitation purposes. The High Court’s order allowing the suit to proceed despite clear pleadings on limitation was set aside.

[1] BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. versus Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.,

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

C.A. NO. OF 2025, (2025 INSC 485)

 Judgment Dated: April 15, 2025

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/20183/20183_2024_15_1501_60903_Judgement_15-Apr-2025.pdf