SATYENDRA PRASAD SAH vs GENERAL PUBLIC OF LOCALITY

2026:JHHC:31550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
M.A. No. 342 of 2023
----
Satyendra Prasad Sah, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Jagdish Sah,
by religion – Hindu, resident of Digwadih No.10, PO – Jealgora, PS
– Jorapokhar, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand
.... Appellant
-- Versus --
General Public of Locality, R/o Digwadih No.10, PO – Jealgora, PS –
Jorapokhar, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand
.... Respondent
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant :- Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondent :-
----
th
05 /27.10.2026 By order dated 16 July, 2024, notices have been issued upon
the general public.
2. Service report received with report that “notice to general public
with the help of drummers beat and served a copy of notice by hanging
on the electric pole and in view of that notice is complete.
3. This appeal has been preferred under Section 299 of Indian
Succession Act, 1925 challenging the judgment dated 10.08.2023 passed
by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Letter of Administration
Case No.05 of 2022 by which the Letter of Administration application filed
by the appellant under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act has been
dismissed in respect of the will and Testament dated 25.04.2001
executed by Late Amriteshwar Chakraborty in favour of the appellant
namely Satyendra Prasad Sah.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
testator Amriteshwar Chakravorty was living at Digwadih No.10, PO –
Jeolgora, PS – Jorapokhar, District – Dhanbad and died on 14.08.2004
--1-- M.A. No. 342 of 2023

2026:JHHC:31550
and at the time of his death, he was residing at the said address. He
further submits that Amriteshwar Chakravorty died issueless and had no
relatives. He then submits that on 25.04.2001 Amriteshwar Chakravorty
executed his last registered will in a sound health and perfect state of
mind by which he bequeathed his immovable property in favour of the
applicant. He next submits that testator had not appointed any executor
of the will, therefore, the appellant has filed the said letter of
administration for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the will
executed by Amriteshwar Chakravorty. He also submits that the
documents have been filed before the learned Court and death certificate
of testator Amriteshwar Chakravorty was marked as Exhibit-1, signature
of testator Amriteshwar Chakravorty on will dated 25.04.2001 was
marked as Exhibit-2, signature of testator Amriteshwar Chakravorty on
will dated 25.04.2001 was marked as Exhibit-2/1, signature of testator
Amriteshwar Chakravorty on will dated 25.04.2001 was marked as
Exhibit-2/2, signature of witness (appellant) Satyendra Prasad Sah on will
dated 25.04.2001 was marked as Exhibit-2/3, signature of witness
Mukhut Kumar Sharma on will dated 25.04.2001 was marked as Exhibit-
2/4 and will dated 25.04.2001 was marked as Exhibit-3. He next submits
that although one of the witness on the will namely Mukhut Kumar
Sharma was examined as AW-2 and documents are there in spite of that
the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the said letter of
administration case only on the ground of limitation and the main case
has not been decided. He next submits that learned Court has relied in
the case of Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Bhardwaj versus Krishnadhan
Khaware & Ors. of this Court in M.A. No.153 of 2012. He next submits
that the said judgment was challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court
--2-- M.A. No. 342 of 2023

2026:JHHC:31550
in Special Leave Petition (C) No.13473 of 2022 and converted into Civil
appeal of 2026 has been set aside and the probate case has been
restored to its file of trial court for deciding afresh. He next submits that
delay aspect has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in other cases and in view of that the order of learned Courts is not in
accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that this appeal may
kindly be set aside as only on the ground of limitation the said letter of
administration case has been dismissed and the case has not been
decided on merit.
5. On perusal of the trial court record, it transpires that exhibits, as
noted in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
have been marked by the learned Court. One of the witness on the said
will has been examined as AW-2 and he has proved the signature.
Appellant herein was also examined as AW-1 and the learned Court has
been pleased to dismiss the said letter of administration case only on the
ground of limitation and taking into consideration Article 137 of the
Limitation Act and the learned Court has relied in the case of Sanjay
Sharma @ Sanjay Bhardwaj versus Krishnadhan Khaware and
Ors. of this Court which has been set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2026 INSC 708 wherein at Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 it has been
held as under :-
5. The probate of a Will has three -fold purposes- (a) It is a judicial
stamp of approval on the genuineness of the Will ; (b) It acknowledges
the appointment of an executor of the Will ; (c) It grants the executor to
act for the purposes of the Will. Keeping this in view, the specific view
that the period of limitation for probate commences from the death of
the testator has been rejected. The Bombay High Court in Vasudev
Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani , 5 which has been
quoted with approval by this Court in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v.
Kirandeep Kaur 6 , and Sameer Kapoor v. State 7 , except on one
point held as under:
“15. Similarly reference was made to a decision of the
--3-- M.A. No. 342 of 2023

2026:JHHC:31550
Bombay High Court in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v.
Sajni Prem Lalwani [AIR 1983 Bom 268] . Para 16 reads as
follows : (AIR p. 270)
“16. Rejecting Mr Dalpatrai's contention, I
summarise my conclusions thus—
(a) under the Limitation Act no period is
advisedly prescribed within which an application
for probate, letters of administration or
succession certificate must be made;
(b) the assumption that under Article 137 the
right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of
the death of the deceased, is unwarranted;
(c) such an application is for the court's
permission to perform a legal duty created by a
will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee
and is a continuous right which can be exercised
any time after the death of the deceased, as long
as the right to do so survives and the object of
the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created,
remains to be executed;
(d) the right to apply would accrue when it
becomes necessary to apply which may not
necessarily be within 3 years from the date of the
deceased's death;
(e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's
death would arouse suspicion and greater the
delay, greater would be the suspicion;
(f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be
equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and
(g) once execution and attestation are proved,
suspicion of delay no longer operates.”
Conclusion (b) is not correct while Conclusion (c) is the correct
position of law.”
In both judgments of this Court, it has been stated that point (b)
is incorrect while (c) is the correct position of law.
6. It is, therefore, a continuous right that can be exercised at any time
so long as the object of the Will survives. The right to apply would
therefore accrue from the date that it becomes necessary to apply. This
obviously need not be within three years from the death of the testator.
In this case, then, the need to apply would commence from the date
when the respondents took actions hostile to the position established by
the Will, that is, the execution of a General Power of Attorney by Laxmi
Devi, wife of the testator on 8th August 2005. In that view of the matter,
the application for probate of Will made by the executor Mr. Bhudeo
Prasad Singh, in favour of the appellants Sanjay Sharma @Sanjay
Bhardwaj is held to be within limitation since the same was filed 31st
August 2005.
--4-- M.A. No. 342 of 2023

2026:JHHC:31550
6. In the case of Krishna Kumar Sharma vs. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma reported in 2009 Supreme (SC) 577 wherein at paragraph
No.9 it has been held as under :-
9. Similarly, reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High
Court's case in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v Sajni Prem
Lalwani (AIR 1983 Bom.268).
Para 16 reads as follows:
"16. Rejecting Mr. Dalapatrai's contention, I summarise my conclusions
thus:--
(a) under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed
within which an application for probate, letters of administration
or succession certificate must be made;
(b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply
necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is
unwarranted;
(c) such an application is for the Court's permission to perform a
legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary
trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time
after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so
survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the
trust, if created, remains to be executed;
(d) the right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary
to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years form the
date of the deceased's death.
(e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would
arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the
suspicion;
(f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with
the absolute bar of limitation; and
(g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay
no longer operates".
7. The aforesaid aspect has been highlighted in the case of
Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur Vs. Kirandeep Kaur & Ors. reported
in 2008 Supreme (SC) 592.
8. The aforesaid aspect has been further considered recently by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sameer Kapoor and Another
vs. The State through Sub-Division Magistrate South, New Delhi
and Others reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 512 wherein at
paragraph No.17 it has been held as under :-
--5-- M.A. No. 342 of 2023

2026:JHHC:31550
17. Therefore, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), it can be said that in a proceeding,
or in other words, in an application filed for grant of probate or letters of
administration, no right is asserted or claimed by the applicant. The
applicant only seeks recognition of the court to perform a duty. Probate
or letters of administration issued by a competent court is conclusive
proof of the legal character throughout the world. That the proceedings
filed for grant of probate or letters of administration is not an action in
law but it is an action in rem. As held by this Court in the case of
Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), an application for grant of probate
or letters of administration is for the court’s permission to perform a legal
duty created by a will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is
a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of
the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the
trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed.
Therefore, even if the will is probated by any court mentioned in Section
228 of the Act, right to get the letters of administration is a continuous
right which can be exercised any time, as long as the right to do so
survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if
created, remains to be executed.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis this Court
comes to the conclusion that letter of administration is a continuous right
which can be exercised anytime so long as the right to do so survive.
Accordingly, the judgment dated 10.08.2023 passed by learned Principal
District Judge, Dhanbad in Letter of Administration Case No.05 of 2022 is
hereby set aside as having plainly erred in law this appeal is allowed.
10. The Letter of Administration Case No.05 of 2022 is restored to
its original file with a direction to the learned Court to decide the same
afresh.
11. This appeal is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
12. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned Court
concerned forthwith.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated 27.10.2026
Sangam/
A.F.R.
--6-- M.A. No. 342 of 2023