Notice in Mutation Proceedings Amounts to Constructive Notice of Probate, Rules Supreme Court
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi holds that ignoring a court notice is not the conduct of a reasonably prudent person, rendering a belated probate revocation application hopelessly time-barred.
The Supreme Court has held that a notice served in mutation proceedings can constitute constructive notice of the underlying probate of a Will, and that a party who chooses to ignore such a notice cannot later claim ignorance to save a limitation period. Deciding a civil appeal arising out of SLP (C.) No. 3371 of 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside a Division Bench judgment of the High Court that had allowed an application for revocation of probate filed in 2022, nearly three decades after the probate was granted. The Court restored the order of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the revocation application as barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1963.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
Smt. Gouriprova Sen inherited properties from her husband, Mr. Amulya Chandra Sen, as his sole legal heir. She gifted a portion of those properties to the appellant, Dhiraj Dutta, her nephew, by a deed bearing no. 4905 of 1978. Her Will, dated 9 July 1989, named the appellant as sole executor and beneficiary. She died on 8 October 1989.
The appellant applied for probate of the Will. His application, PLA No. 238 of 1995, was granted on 28 September 1995. Proceedings for changes in the Revenue Record were initiated around 2010–11 under O.A. No. 1417 of 2012. In July 2013, a copy of that application was served on the heirs of Gouriprova Sen.
The respondents — nephews-in-law of the testatrix and described as the only surviving members of the family of the testatrix's husband — already had mutation entries in their favour. They did not contest the mutation application. The West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application. A writ petition filed by the appellant, WPLRT No. 103 of 2019, was also dismissed in default.
The respondents say they first learnt of the probate in 2019, following which they filed Title Suit No. 60 of 2019 for declaration and injunction. On 5 July 2022, they filed G.A. 02 of 2022 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 seeking revocation of the probate granted in 1995.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the revocation application on 16 June 2023, holding it barred by limitation. On appeal, the Division Bench took a different view and allowed the application. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Limitation Framework: Section 263 and Article 137
Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 permits revocation or annulment of a grant of probate for just cause. The provision lists several grounds, including that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing something material, that the Will was forged or revoked, or that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance.
The Court noted that the Indian Succession Act does not itself prescribe any limitation period for an application to revoke probate. Recourse must therefore be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963, which provides a three-year period for “any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere.” The period runs from when the right to apply accrues.
The central factual question was therefore: when did the respondents' right to apply accrue? The appellant argued it accrued in 2013 when notice was served in the mutation proceedings. The respondents argued they only acquired knowledge in 2019, making their 2022 application timely.
Constructive Notice: What the Court Deduced
The Court drew on three earlier judgments — Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (2015) 7 SCC 601, Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen (2026) 3 SCC 460, and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai (1971) 1 SCC 757 — to set out the governing principles on constructive notice.
From those judgments, the Court distilled four propositions. First, constructive notice is a deeming fiction originating from equity; it is distinguishable from actual notice because it is an inferral by law. Second, it hinges on either wilful abstention or gross negligence. Third, whether something qualifies as constructive notice is a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact, depending on the circumstances. Fourth, the standard for determining wilful abstention or gross negligence is that of a reasonably prudent person as applied in Indian conditions.
Applying the Standard: Silence After a Court Notice
The respondents admitted in their own revocation application that notice of O.A. No. 1417 of 2012 was served on them in July 2013. Their explanation for inaction was that they already had mutation entries in their favour and so chose not to contest the mutation proceedings.
The Court found this explanation inadequate. It held that receiving a notice from a court and doing nothing about it “cannot be termed to be the conduct of a reasonably prudent man.” The minimum expected of a person who receives a court notice is to make attempts to find out why it was sent and what response it required.
The Court pressed further. The respondents' mutation entries did not confer title — it is well established that mutation proceedings do not determine ownership. Given that their enjoyment of the properties rested on entries that confer no title, the Court said it could only be expected that they would attempt to go to the root of the matter and find out why a third party had initiated competing mutation proceedings. That was not done.
The Court also examined what the respondents said about the period between 2013 and 2019 in their revocation application. All they stated was that the appellant had attempted to threaten them and dispossess them of their right, title and interest. The Court found this insufficient: how their right and title came to rest with them was left unexplained, and how the appellant threatened them was met with silence.
The Limitation Clock and Its Consequence
Having found that the 2013 notice in the mutation proceedings amounted to constructive notice, the Court held that the respondents ought to have made attempts at that point to find out on what basis the mutation proceedings had been filed. Had they done so, they would have discovered that those proceedings rested on the probate of the Will granted to the appellant. The three-year period under Article 137 would have run from that point of deemed knowledge.
The Court held that, at any rate, the date of knowledge could not be pushed to 2019 so as to bring the 2022 application within the three-year window. The application for revocation of probate was therefore “hopelessly time barred.”
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal. The judgment of the learned Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 16 June 2023, dismissing the revocation application as barred by limitation, was restored. The Court directed that all necessary consequences would follow and that pending applications would be disposed of accordingly. Costs were made easy.