Recently, the Delhi High Court held that the mere existence of a right under a Will does not by itself give rise to a cause of action and that the right to sue accrues only when such entitlement is asserted and subsequently denied or not honoured. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a money decree passed in favour of a mother seeking enforcement of her share in a joint bank account under a probated Will.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a recovery suit filed by a mother against her son seeking 50% share in the money lying in a joint bank account on the basis of a registered and probated Will executed by her late father-in-law. The dispute centred around the Defendant’s withdrawal of the amount from the joint account after the death of the testator and the Plaintiff’s claim that her entitlement under the Will had not been honoured. The Trial Court decreed the suit in her favour and held that the claim was not barred by limitation as the matter involved the enforcement of rights arising under the Will, thereby giving rise to a continuing cause of action. Aggrieved by the decree passed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Defendant approached the High Court challenging the findings on limitation, proof of the Will, and entitlement of the Plaintiff.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Counsel argued that the Plaintiff had knowledge regarding the operation of the bank account as early as September 2019, particularly in light of the letter issued to the bank requesting that the Defendant not operate the account without her consent. The Appellant further argued that the Trial Court wrongly treated the suit as akin to a partition dispute to avoid limitation and mechanically converted the testamentary directions contained in the Will into a money decree without independently adjudicating the partie’s rights and the nature of the joint account.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the suit was founded upon her entitlement under the registered and probated Will executed by the Late Sh. Prabhu Nath Singh, under which the amounts lying in the joint bank accounts were to devolve upon the surviving joint holders. The Counsel argued that the Will had already been proved in probate proceedings and therefore did not require fresh proof under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Respondent further submitted that mere knowledge regarding the operation of the bank account in 2009 could not amount to a denial of her entitlement and that the cause of action arose only when her claim was asserted and not honoured after issuance of the duplicate passbook and legal notice. The Counsel also contended that the alleged family settlement was unsupported by any documentary evidence and had rightly been rejected by the Trial Court.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the registered and probated Will had never been disputed by the parties and therefore did not require fresh proof under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Bench held that once probate is granted, the Probate Judgment operates in rem and conclusively establishes the genuineness of the Will. Referring to the operative clause concerning the joint bank accounts, the Court emphasised that the intention of the testator was explicit and left “little room for ambiguity,” as the money lying in the joint accounts was meant to devolve upon the surviving joint holders exclusively. The Bench consequently held that the Plaintiff’s entitlement to 50% share in the amount lying in the account stood clearly established from the terms of the Will itself.
The Court further observed that the Appellant’s objection regarding limitation was misconceived because the dispute related to the enforcement of entitlement flowing from the Will and not merely to the operation of the bank account. The Bench clarified that mere knowledge regarding the operation of the account could not automatically amount to a denial of the Plaintiff’s rights. It was emphasised that the Plaintiff’s communication to the bank merely reflected apprehension about the operation of the account and did not constitute an assertion of her entitlement or refusal thereof. The Court therefore held that the limitation would commence only when the entitlement under the Will was asserted and subsequently denied or not honoured.
The Court held that the cause of action arose only after the Plaintiff asserted her claim through the duplicate passbook and legal notice seeking her share in the joint account. Rejecting the Appellant’s argument that the Trial Court had incorrectly treated the matter as a partition dispute, the Bench observed that the Trial Court had merely examined the true nature of the claim, namely, enforcement of rights arising under the Will. The Court also rejected the defence based on an alleged family settlement, noting the absence of documentary proof and unreliable testimony in support of such a plea.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the Trial Court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree in favour of the Plaintiff.
Case Title: Mr. Dileep Singh Vs. Smt. Girija Devi
Case No.: RFA 481/2026
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Nishant Das, Adv. Aditya Rana, Adv. Aatrayi Das
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
