Notice in related proceedings constitutes constructive notice for limitation purposes in probate revocation applications.

The appellant, Dhiraj Dutta, was the sole executor and beneficiary of a Will dated July 9, 1989, executed by Smt. Gouriprova Sen

Probate of the Will was granted on September 28, 1995

In 2010-11, the appellant initiated mutation proceedings based on this probate; notices for these proceedings were served upon the respondents’ predecessors in 2013

The respondents, who are nephews-in-law of the testatrix, claimed they only discovered the probate in 2019 and subsequently filed a lawsuit for declaration and injunction

On July 5, 2022, the respondents filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act (ISA) for revocation of the 1995 probate

The Single Judge dismissed the application as time-barred, but the Division Bench reversed this decision on appeal

Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides for the revocation or annulment of a probate grant for "just cause," such as defective proceedings or fraud

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which stipulates a three-year limitation period from the date "when the right to apply accrues"

Reliance was placed on Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias and Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Surendra Manohar Parakhe to establish that the right to apply accrues from the date the applicant acquires knowledge

Principles from Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai, establishing that a party is deemed to have notice if they willfully abstain from inquiry or show gross negligence

The court analyzed whether the 2013 notice regarding mutation proceedings served as "constructive notice" of the probate grant. It observed that the respondents admitted receiving the 2013 notice but chose to ignore it because they already had mutation entries in their favor

The court applied the "reasonably prudent man" standard, determining that a prudent person, upon receiving a court notice regarding property mutation initiated by a third party, is expected to investigate the basis of such a claim

The court found that the respondents’ failure to inquire into the appellant’s claim (which was based on the probate) constituted a lack of due diligence. Consequently, the "right to apply" for revocation accrued in 2013, not 2019, when the respondents were first put on notice regarding the appellant's adverse claims over the property

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, and restored the order of the Single Judge dismissing the revocation application. Costs were made easy