Limitation for recovery of joint bank funds under a Will commences from knowledge of misappropriation or refusal.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit for recovery against his son, the Defendant (Appellant), claiming a 50% share in a joint savings account (No. 1010562041) held at Central Bank

The account was originally opened by the Plaintiff’s father, Late Sh. Prabhu Nath Singh, who bequeathed the cash balances in joint accounts to the respective joint holders via a registered Will dated 26.06.2007

Following the father’s death in 2009, the Defendant allegedly withdrew the entire balance of approximately ₹6.15 Lakhs without informing the illiterate Plaintiff

The Defendant contended the suit was barred by limitation and that a family settlement involving jewelry and ₹1,00,000 cash had already occurred in 2009

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff’s LRs for ₹2,05,326 after accounting for the Defendant’s share as a legal heir upon the Plaintiff’s death during proceedings

1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a 50% share of the funds based on the registered Will, despite not examining an attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act

3. Whether the Trial Court erred in re-characterizing a recovery suit as a partition suit to circumvent limitation

The Court applied Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the right to appeal

The requirement to examine an attesting witness is dispensed with when the Will's execution is not specifically denied or if it has been previously probated

Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year period from the date the right to sue accrues

Principles from Thayyullathil Kunhikannan v. Thayyullathil Kalliani were used to justify reliance on admitted documents

Order VII Rule 7 CPC was applied to mould the relief based on subsequent events (the death of the original Plaintiff)

The Court found that the Will (Ex.PW1/3) was already probated in Case No. 120/2011, making it a judgment in rem and negating the need for fresh proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act

The High Court rejected the limitation argument, reasoning that since the Defendant denied any earlier demand was made, the "right to sue" under Article 113 only accrued when the Plaintiff gained knowledge of the fraudulent withdrawals via a duplicate passbook on 10.09.2012

Even if calculated from the date of the first major withdrawal (12.11.2010), the suit filed on 12.09.2013 was within the three-year window

The Court dismissed the Appellant’s claim of a family settlement due to a lack of documentary evidence and the failure of witness DW-2 to complete cross-examination

The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to "mould the relief" under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, reducing the award to 2/3rd of the claim because the Defendant, as a son, was also a legal heir to his deceased father’s (the Plaintiff’s) estate

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree of ₹2,05,326 with 6% interest per annum awarded to the substituted LRs

The Court held that when a Will is probated and its terms are unambiguous regarding joint account devolution, the surviving joint holders have an enforceable legal right to the funds