Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Another v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Others
- Vaishnavi Majji
- Oct 23
- 2 min read
In a significant judgment delivered on April 15, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Another v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Others reaffirmed the strict application of limitation laws in suits challenging testamentary instruments.
The dispute arose from a 2017 suit filed by Hitesh Sanghvi, seeking to declare a Will dated 4 February 2014 and a Codicil dated 20 September 2014 executed by his deceased father as null and void, alongside a prayer for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, holding that it was barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from the date when the cause of action first arises.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reversed this decision, allowing the suit to proceed based on the plaintiff’s contention that limitation should run from the date of acquiring “full knowledge” of the contents of the Will and Codicil.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the “full knowledge” argument was legally untenable. The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, held that limitation commences when the cause of action arises, not when the plaintiff achieves full awareness of its legal implications. Since Sanghvi admitted to knowing about the documents in November 2014, the limitation expired by November 2017. The suit, filed later that month, was deemed barred by law.
The Court further clarified that when the primary relief is time barred, all ancillary reliefs, such as injunctions, must necessarily fail. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering strictly to statutory limitation periods in testamentary disputes and disallows an attempt to circumvent them through derivative reliefs.
Source
Comments