Introduction
The Supreme Court has once again highlighted that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. In Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors., the Court examined whether an application seeking revocation of probate nearly three decades after its grant could be sustained on the ground that the applicants acquired actual knowledge of the probate only much later. The case presented an opportunity for the Court to clarify the interplay between Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Holding that constructive notice is sufficient to trigger limitation, the Court ruled that parties who receive notices in proceedings affecting their claimed rights cannot deliberately ignore such notices and later plead ignorance of the underlying legal basis. The decision serves as an important precedent in probate litigation by reaffirming that challenges to grants of probate must be pursued within a reasonable time and with
