Probated Will confers absolute entitlement to Joint Bank Account balances regardless of prior knowledge or withdrawal.

The Respondent (Plaintiff), mother of the Appellant (Defendant), filed a suit for recovery of ₹8,99,015. This amount represented her 50% share of funds lying in a joint bank account held with the Appellant and her deceased father-in-law, Late Sh. Prabhu Nath Singh

The claim was based on a registered Will dated 26.06.2007 executed by the deceased, which stated that cash balances in joint accounts would devolve upon the respective joint holders

The Appellant contested the suit, alleging it was barred by limitation because the Respondent knew of the account's operation in 2009

He further claimed a family settlement had already occurred in December 2009

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent

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

2. Whether the Will dated 26.06.2007 was duly proved in the absence of attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Evidence Act

3. Whether the Respondent was entitled to 50% of the joint account balance based on the testamentary disposition

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that while it generally requires at least one attesting witness to prove a Will, this requirement is dispensed with if the Will is admitted by the parties or has been probated by a competent court

The court relied on the principle from Thayyullathil Kunhikannan v. Thayyullathil Kalliani regarding admissions

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

The court observed the principle of dominus litis and the necessity of "demand and refusal" to trigger limitation in disputes between co-sharers

The Court found the Will Ex.P2 was beyond challenge as it had already been proved in probate proceedings (Probate Case No. 120/2011) where both parties were present; thus, a probate judgment operates in rem

On the issue of limitation, the Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the 2009 letters to the bank triggered the clock

It reasoned that under Article 113, the right to sue for one's share under a Will accrues only when the claimant asserts the right and the defendant denies it

Since the Appellant admitted in testimony that the Respondent had never specifically demanded the share earlier, there was no prior "refusal"

Therefore, limitation only commenced upon the issuance of the duplicate passbook in June 2013 or the legal notice in August 2013, making the 2014 suit timely

The Court also dismissed the "family settlement" defense due to lack of documentary evidence and the failure of witness DW-2 to complete cross-examination

(1) the suit was within limitation as the cause of action arose only upon the denial of the claim in 2013; (2) the Will was legally proved via the prior probate grant; and (3) the Respondent was entitled to ₹8,99,015 with 6% interest per annum as per the express terms of the Will

All pending applications were disposed of