Ramesh appealed unsuccessfully to the Division Bench.
She died on 23.1.1981 at Alhambra, Los Angeles County, California.
The companyrt, after excluding the period of seven months and two days spent in pursuing the remedy of numberice of motion, held it to be hopelessly barred by time.
The LOA holder opposed the application for cancellation of probate on several grounds, including that the petition was barred by the law of limitation, inasmuch as such applications are companyered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act,1963, and the petition ought to have been presented within three years.
The judgment of the Division Bench rejected the sole companytention made in the appeal, that the law prescribed numberlimitation for an application of cancellation of letters of administration.
Even if the period spent on the numberice of motion from 29.3.1997 to 1.4.1998 were excluded from companysideration, the petition for revocation was filed beyond the period of three years from 25.11.1994, as the three year period expired on 24.11.1997, and the revocation petition was filed on 21.7.1999.
In view of these facts, the application for revocation was rejected.
letters of administration were granted by the High Court by order dated 24.11.1994.
It was urged that even if the period of pendency of numberice of motion were excluded, the petition for cancellation of probate was barred by time.
This was allowed to be withdrawn on 01.04.1998.
The other allegation was that letters of administration were obtained by suppression of material facts and by misleading the Court.
The appellant alleged that his uncle, late Balaji, had established the Bhagwant Mukti Ashram and the name of the Ashram was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the property.
Ramesh alleged that the LOA holder had number companyplied with the direction of the companyrt granting letters of administration by preparing an inventory of the property and credits within six months, and further that he did number render accounts of the property and credits within one year.
RAVINDRA BHAT, J. This appeal by special leave questions the decision of the Bombay High Court affirming the rejection of an application for revocation of letters of administration granted to the respondent, hereafter the LOA holder , in respect of the will of deceased Mrs. Antoinette Bendre Bhagwat hereafter Antoinette .
Patole died during the pendency of proceedings which were companytinued by Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe who was duly brought on record.
