Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mithias (D) By Lrs

Citation: (2018) 1 SCC 271

Name of parties:

Appellants: Mrs. Lynette Fernandes

Respondent: Mrs. Gertie Mathias since Deceased by Lrs

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Date Of Appeal: 2010

Date Of Judgement: Wed Nov 08 2017

Facts of Case

It is a noteworthy case wherein bar of limitation pertaining to petitions made under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and other crucial aspects have been critically examined. An individual (Mr. Richard P. Mathias ) died  on 05.11.1959 leaving behind his wife along with his three children (who were minors at the time of demise of Mr. Richard P. Mathias) born out of their wedlock. The deceased individual executed a Will during his lifetime and thereby transferred the ownership rights of his assets to his wife Mrs. Gertie Mathias in entirety during the year 1959.  The wife got the probate granted from the court too on 09.09.1960. Years later, the then minor children became major by 1965 and one of them challenged the grant of probate by filing a suit under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act in the year 1996. Her plea for revoking the granted probate was dismissed by the District Judge, primarily due to bar of limitation and merits of the case. The High Court too didn’t have any contrary stand to it. Hence, she has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge the same. 

Issues Before Court

• Whether the grant of probate was acquired through forging ?
• Whether the time lines prescribed by the Limitation Act for filing petitions in civil courts applies for making the Application for revocation of the grant filed under Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ?
• Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to each and every petition filed under any Act to a civil court ?
• Whether the person challenged the grant of probate has failed on his part to prove that the Will was a result of fraud or undue influence through evidences ?

Judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the subordinate courts and dismissed the appeal reasoning that there is a lack of produce of evidences from the person who alleged that the Court has erred in granting the probate and moreover, the Appellant’s failure to act against the probate granted for over 36 years from attaining the age of majority per se indicates that there was no interest for the Appellant on the assets as such and hence, entertaining the appeal would not be of a just cause. Further, they clarified that the Limitation Act applies to every suit made in any civil courts and the limitation period starts from the date of attaining majority only,  but even looking the case from that aspect too, it is clear that the limitation period has been barred.

Key Takeaways