DILEEP BALKRISHNA NEVATIA v. SHISHIR BALKRISHNA NEVATIA
Application of Article 106 of the Limitation Act to Administration Suits and the Prohibition of Partial Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:8582
Decision Date: 08-04-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Limitation Act, 1963; The Indian Succession Act, 1925; Administration Suits
- Facts: The Plaintiff, Shishir Balkrishna Nevatia, filed a suit in 2015 for the administration of the estates of his late father (who died in August 2005) and late mother (who died in June 2011). The suit sought declarations regarding the properties constituting the estates, appointment of an administrator, and damages for alleged intermeddling by Defendant No. 1, Dileep Balkrishna Nevatia. Defendant No. 1 filed an Interim Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation because the cause of action allegedly arose as early as 1990, and that the suit was an abuse of process given previous litigations concerning one of the properties.
- Procedural Posture: The matter came before the Bombay High Court as an Interim Application filed by the first Defendant within the original civil suit. The court had to determine whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action that was barred by law on its face.
- Issue: Whether the suit for administration of the estates was barred by the law of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, and whether the filing of a substantive suit for administration constitutes an abuse of process when summary remedies under the Indian Succession Act exist.
- Holding: No, the suit is not barred by limitation, and the Interim Application is rejected.
- Reasoning: The court reasoned that an administration suit by a legal heir is governed by Article 106 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a twelve-year limitation period starting from when the legacy or share becomes payable or deliverable. Under Section 337 of the Indian Succession Act, an executor is not bound to pay legacies until one year after the testator's death. In this case, the parents died in 2005 and 2011, making the 2015 suit well within the twelve-year period starting one year after their respective deaths. The court emphasized the settled principle that a plaint must be rejected as a whole or not at all; since the primary reliefs for administration were within time, the suit must proceed to trial. Furthermore, the court held that a substantive suit for administration and protective reliefs is a proper remedy and is not barred by the existence of summary proceedings under the Indian Succession Act.
🔒 For Members Only