Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the then 7th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad in Letters of Administration Case No, 2 of 1980, whereby the application made by the applicant-appellant for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the Annexed Will dated 6-2-1962 allegedly executed by late Nandu Mahto of village Sonabad, P.S. Chas, District-Dhanbad who died on 9-11-1964 has been rejected. 2. The case of the plain tiff-applicant was that late Nandu Mahto had adopted him as his adopted son and his relationship with the deceased was that of uncle and nephew. Besides the applicant-appellant-Nagen Mahto, the deceased had also daughters and wife. It was the case of the applicant-appellant that about two years prior to the death, late Nandu Mahto executed a will on 6-2-1962 bequeathing his properties as contained in Annexures-A, B and C of the petition for Letters of Administration. Some of the properties had been bequeathed in favour of the adopted son i.e. the applicant and some properties had been specifically bequeathed in favour of the daughters and widow. The property was assessed to be valued at Rs. 2200.00 . 3. Petition for Letters of Administration was filed by the applicant-appellant in the year 1980 and the same was registered on 11-7-1980 as Letters of Administration Case No. 2 of 1980. The natural heirs of late Nandu Mahto had been made parties and they were given notice also. Once case was ready for ex parte hearing as the natural heirs did not appear, but on perusal of the Will in question, the then Judge concerned had a doubt regarding the genuinity of the Will and as such he ordered for further notice to be served on the natural heirs of the Testator. Accordingly, notices were served and now the natural heirs have appeared and they have questioned by filing objection regarding the genuinity of the Will and also the maintainability of the petition on the ground of limitation. 4. Both parties adduced evidence and the learned Court below had formulated two points for determination in disposing of the case: (i) Whether the application is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration, as prayed? 5. 4. Both parties adduced evidence and the learned Court below had formulated two points for determination in disposing of the case: (i) Whether the application is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration, as prayed? 5. On the first point, regarding limitation, the learned Court below by referring to a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as reported in AIR 1987 P&H, page 122 held that as the testator died in the year 1964 then the cause of action must have arisen on that date of the death of the testator and the Letters of Administration must have been filed within three years from that date of death of testator as contemplated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and when the application had not been filed within the period of limitation, the whole case is barred by limitation. On the second point, the learned Court below has given much stress regarding the adoption of the applicant by the testator and he could find that such adoption could not be proved and "also held that evidence regarding execution of Will is also not up to the mark" and that evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 does not inspire confidence and on such finding, second point has also been decided against the applicant appellant and the whole petition was dismissed, hence the present appeal. 6. Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has attacked the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Court below had wrongly construed Article 137 of the Limitation Act, when Probate or Letters of Administration petition never comes within the purview of that Article. His further submission is that the way the learned Court below has approached in deciding the genuinity of the Will is not only improper rather preconceived mind of the learned Judge concerned could be understood when he found that there was doubt regarding adoption of the applicant by the testator. 7. Mr. K.C. Mahto, appearing for and on behalf of the respondents controverted the averments of Mr. Das by referring to the findings of the impugned judgment and also by referring to the materials on record. 8. On the first point of limitation, it must be held that the learned Court below has deviated from the settled principles of law. 7. Mr. K.C. Mahto, appearing for and on behalf of the respondents controverted the averments of Mr. Das by referring to the findings of the impugned judgment and also by referring to the materials on record. 8. On the first point of limitation, it must be held that the learned Court below has deviated from the settled principles of law. Article 137 of the Limitation Act is an omnibus provision by which it was enumerated that in other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Limitation Act, should have the limitation of three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. Now, in a Probate or Letters of Administration petition, there is no time-limit as to when cause of action arises. When, a Will is executed by a Testator then at any time after the date of death of the testator the cause of action may arise. The Executor in the way, may or may not apply for Probate until and unless he feels that implementation of the Will by which the trust is created in his favour is required. Similarly, where no executor is appointed by a Will then any party interested may come up for Letters of Administration and no time-limit is prescribed for the same. It can only be said that the case of Probabe or Letters of Administration can only arise after the death of the Testator. It has already been held by the various High Courts long back that applications for Probate or Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act do not come within the purview of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court held in AIR 1937 Cal Page 595 (Durgapada Bern V/s. Atul Chandra Bera) that no time-limit is there for the purpose of filing a petition under the Indian Succession Act either for Probate or for Letters of Administration because such application is in the form of implementation of a trust created by the Will annexed either to the Executor or their beneficiaries and such implementation may be taken up by the person concerned at any time, but much delay in filing of such petition may create a doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will. But, that is on a different context i.e. on the factual aspect of grant of Letters of Administration or the Probate but on Limitation matter it was wrongly held by the learned Court below that the application comes within the purview of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Then, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the same breath as reported in 1987 Punjab and Haryana, 127 held that Letters of Administration of Probate applications under the Indian Succession Act does not come within the purview of Limitation Act. Reference was made to Madras and Calcutta High Courts rulings also, 9. Even if the Article 137 of the Limitation Act is construed to be applicable m matters of application for Letters of Administration or Probate then also the limitation period should be construed as starting point when the cause of action arises. I have already mentioned that these applications are in the form of implementation of a trust of a deceased testator and it is incumbent on the part of the beneficiary or the executor to consider HS to when his cause of action arises to come to the Court for the purpose of implementation. Death of testator in no way can be construed as starting point of limitation. Thus, even if Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable then also, the same is depending on the time or the date when the cause of action arises, but it has already been held by almost all the High Courts that for applications either for Probate or for Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act do not. come within the purview of Limitation Act, not to speak of Article 137. Thus, this point has wrongly been decided by the learned Court below. 10. Regarding the factual aspect, I feel that the learned Court below has not approached the case in its proper perspectively. The mind of the learned Court below was perplexed regarding the adoption of the applicant by the testator as if unless the applicant could prove his adoption in his favour, there cannot be any bequeathing by the testator. A person having property can any time bequeath his property in favour of a stranger even. There is no legal bar. So whether the applicant is an adopted son or not, the same matters little. A person having property can any time bequeath his property in favour of a stranger even. There is no legal bar. So whether the applicant is an adopted son or not, the same matters little. The only point i.e. to be considered whether there was genuineness in the Will regarding its execution by the testator and as to whether he was i.e. the testator was in sound health and mind at the time of execution of the Will and not being influenced or coerced by anybody. 11. Regarding those points about the genuinenity of the Will, learned Court below has not made any discussion in the impugned judgment except some opinion regarding the witnesses that too in the form of "appears to be". There is no firm opinion of the learned Court below regarding disbelieving of the attesting witnesses of the beneficiaries i.e. applicant himself. 12. In the way itself, I find that the whole property of the testator had never been bequeathed in favour of the applicant alone rather some properties have been given/bequeathed in favour of his natural heirs also, which might presume that the testator was having good senses and having clear mind at the time of execution of the Will regarding bequeathing of his properties. I do not want to enter much in this aspect as when the evidence has not been properly discussed by the learned Court below and the genuinenity of the Will has not been decided by the learned Court below in its proper perspective, the case must go on remand for proper disposal, according to the law in the light of the observations made above. The parties must also be given further opportunity to adduce more evidence, if necessary. 13. In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. 14. As the case is a long-pending one, I hereby direct that the learned Court below shall make all efforts to dispose of the matter within three months next from the date of receipt of the lower Court records. 14. As the case is a long-pending one, I hereby direct that the learned Court below shall make all efforts to dispose of the matter within three months next from the date of receipt of the lower Court records. Learned Counsel for the parties are hereby also directed to inform their parties so that they can appear before the Court below on the re-opening date after the Puja vacation and the time-frame may also starts from that date. Office is hereby directed to despatch the lower Court records immediately. 15. In the nature and circumstances of the case, I do no award costs to either of the parties.