Ignoring objection notice for property mutation proves costly: SC rejects relatives' bid to revoke probate of aunt's Will that made nephew sole beneficiary

When Mr Dutta (nephew) inherited his aunt,Smt Sen's properties through her Will, no one from Sen's family contested it, leading the court to grant probate in his favour back in 1995. Fast forward to 2013, Dutta started the mutation process for these properties and notices were served on his aunt's relatives, inviting any objections. Even though the relatives received those notices, they chose not to contest the mutation proceedings because they believed that mutation entries were already in their names.

However, about nine years later in 2022, Sen's relatives sought revocation of the probate of Sen's Will, claiming they only found out about it in 2019, despite the fact that the probate was granted way back in 1995.

The Supreme Court rejected their plea, holding that the mutation notices amounted to constructive notice and Sen's relatives could not ignore those notices and then challenge the probate of Will after so many years. Their application was deemed time-barred.


The Supreme Court ruled that Sen's relatives, who ignored mutation notices from 2013, couldn't claim they were unaware till 2019. So, their 2022 attempt to revoke the 1995 probate of Will was declared time-barred, resulting in a win for beneficiary Dutta (the nephew) and the probate remaining valid.

The Supreme Court only decided the limitation issue concerning revocation of the probate granted to Dutta in 1995. The apex court did not determine ownership of the properties, since mutation entries do not confer title.

Hence, the underlying property ownership dispute is yet to be decided in a separate title suit already filed by Sen's relatives in 2019, which is currently pending in the competent court.

Keep reading to learn more about this case and understand why the relatives lost the revocation of the probate of Will case.

Also read: For 36 years brothers fought among themselves to get late elder sister’s property; Brother with sister’s registered Will wins for this reason

What happened in this case?

According to the Supreme Court judgement, here is the timeline of events:

• August 15, 1978: Smt Sen (aunt) gifted (no.4905 of 1978) some of her properties to Mr Dutta (nephew). These properties originally belonged to Sen's late husband.
• July 9, 1989: Sen executed a Will stating that Dutta is the sole executor and beneficiary of her properties.
• October 8, 1989: Sen died.
• September 28, 1995: Dutta applied for probate of Sen's Will and the court granted it in his favour.
• 2010-2013: Dutta applied for mutating his name in Sen's properties (O.A. No.1417 of 2012). Notices inviting any objections were sent to Sen's only surviving family members around 2013. Nobody objected at that time since Sen's family thought they had the mutation entries in their name.
• 2019: Sen's surviving family members claim to have found out about the probate of Will granted to Dutta in 1995 and decided to object to it now. Sen's family filed a court case (Title suit no.60 of 2019) against Dutta for declaration and injunction. At present this case is pending in court.
• July 5, 2022: Sen's surviving family members filed another case against Dutta. The case was filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 19255 seeking revocation of the probate granted to Dutta on September 28, 1995.
• June 16, 2023: The court (single judge) rejected Sen's relatives' probate objection case holding that it was barred under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963. Unhappy with the decision, Sen's family filed an appeal before the divisional bench.
• 2023: The divisional bench allowed Sen's family's appeal which made Dutta unhappy and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
• May 29, 2026: The Supreme Court (case no: 2026 INSC 602) therefore had to decide whether the application for revocation of the probate filed in 2022 is within limitation, or outside it, given the differing view of the courts below.

Dutta won the case in the Supreme Court. He was represented by Advocate Yashraj Singh Deora, Senior Advocate Swapan Banerjee, Advocate Anindo Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Deepti Garg, Advocate Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate on Record (AOR).

Also read: Husband leaves some properties to sister through Will, excluding wife and children; Supreme Court upholds it for this reason

What happened with Dutta's mutation proceedings?

Dutta had initiated mutation proceedings on the strength of the probate of Will granted to him, which led to notices being served on Sen's relatives in 2013.

However, Sen's relatives told the Supreme Court that the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Tribunal had dismissed Dutta's application and that he thereafter approached the Calcutta High Court, where his writ petition was dismissed for default. He can still choose to file an appeal in a larger bench of the high court or Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court in the case on revocation of probate of Will did not examine the correctness of those mutation proceedings or determine who was entitled to mutation. The Supreme Court's focus was confined to whether Sen's relatives' 2022 application seeking revocation of probate was filed within limitation.

Why the relatives lost the revocation of the probate case and what is the importance of this case for others

Mustafa Motiwala, Senior Partner at Dentons Link Legal, said to ET Wealth Online: The relatives lost the revocation of probate case on the point of “constructive notice”. In the context of the present case, it would mean that the relatives were aware of the mutation proceedings concerning the same property in 2013 but chose not to inquire into the basis of the nephew’s claim. The Supreme Court treated this inaction as constructive notice, which would mean that such relatives were deemed to know the reasons for such mutation proceedings. Therefore, their date of knowledge for the purposes of law of limitation, commences in 2013.

According to Motiwala, the key message from the judgment is that succession and probate disputes cannot be kept alive indefinitely. If a person receives notice of proceedings affecting property, the law requires them to act diligently and make reasonable inquiries and initiate appropriate action. It cannot be ignored and later fallback on ignorance or want of knowledge.

Also read: Forged Will row: Buyer should not face criminal case for purchasing land on the basis of Will which police found to be forged; rules SC

Supreme Court analysis and discussion

A summary of the judgement is as follows:

Sen's relatives did not contest the mutation proceedings back in 2013

The Supreme Court said when "the right to apply" would accrue this fact depends on the date from which the party making the application had knowledge.

In this case, that would be Sen's relatives, who in 2013, got the mutation objection notice served to them. In the revocation of probate application filed in 2022, Sen's relatives submitted that a notice was indeed served upon them with reference to the mutation proceedings but they chose to ignore it since they already enjoyed entries in their favour.

Cases referred to by the Supreme Court:

• (2015) 7 SCC 601
• 11 (2026) 3 SCC 460
• 12 (1971) 1 SCC 757

When property is enjoyed on flimsy ground, the family should have enquired about the mutation proceedings

The Supreme Court also observed that Sen's family members admitted on record that they got the mutation objection notice but chose not to do anything.

The Supreme Court said: "This cannot be termed to be the conduct of a reasonably prudent man. If a Court of law has sent someone a notice, the least that can be accepted is for them to make attempts to find out why the same may have been sent to them and what they would be required to do in regard thereto."

The Supreme Court observed that this is more so the case when the respondents already had mutation entries in their favour and yet the notice received by them were in connection with mutation proceedings initiated by a third party.

After all, if the mutation proceeding by Dutta had succeeded, there would be competing rights of equal stature regarding the same properties since it is well established that mutation proceedings do not confer any title.

The Supreme Court said: "When the enjoyment of a particular property rests on such flimsy grounds, it can only be expected that they would attempt to go to the root of the matter and find out why the notice came to be issued in the first case. This was not done."

The Supreme Court observed that it was entirely possible that the person who had initiated the subsequent mutation proceedings had a better claim over the property than the respondents. Yet no action was taken by Sen's family..

How Dutta threatened Sen's family is not made clear in the probate revocation case

The Supreme Court also said that they have noticed that in the application for revocation of probate, during the time period between 2013 and 2019, when the title suit was filed, all that was said was that Dutta attempted to threaten them and dispossess them of their right, title and interest.

The Supreme Court said: "How the right and title came to rest with them, they are silent. How is it that the appellant threatened them? Nothing but more silence."

Supreme Court judgement order

In these facts and circumstances, the notice in mutation proceedings would be deemed constructive notice. Attempts ought to have been made to figure out on what basis the mutation proceedings came to be filed, and the limitation as given under Article 137 would have applied from the day they would have found out that the said proceedings rested on probate of Will granted to the appellant. At any rate, the same would not have been 2019 to fall within the prescribed limitation in 2022.

The respondents' (Sen's family) application for revocation of probate would hopelessly be time barred. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Division Bench had to be set aside and that of the Single Judge was ordered to be restored. All necessary consequences will follow.