Section 1733

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2715/2562 (2019) ★ Landmark

   The five-year limitation in §1733 paragraph two can be invoked only by heirs and the estate administrator inter se; third parties who are not heirs or administrators cannot raise it.

   The court confirmed that §1733 paragraph two limits actions by heirs against the estate administrator to five years from the end of administration. Only heirs and the administrator of the same estate may invoke this prescription. A third party (defendant 2, a purchaser) who is not a statutory heir or administrator cannot raise the §1733 five-year bar against the plaintiff heirs.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2160/2562 (2019)

   Administration ends when the last estate asset is disposed of or registered; the five-year period under §1733 paragraph two runs from that date, not from when the heir discovered the breach.

   The estate comprised only two parcels of land. The administrators registered both parcels in their own names (and that of a third person) on specified dates in 2003 without distributing to the plaintiff. The court held that administration ended when the last parcel was registered in 2003; the plaintiff's suit filed in 2016 was more than five years after administration ended and was therefore barred under §1733 paragraph two.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2239/2559 (2016)

   The five-year bar in section 1733 paragraph 2 runs from the end of the administration, and it addresses administration or distribution carried out in the ordinary way - not administration that is unlawful, or that involves misappropriation, embezzlement and concealment from the heirs. Where the administration was wrongful it has not lawfully ended, so the five-year period has not begun to run at all and the heirs action is in time. Where the land was Sin Somros, however, the administrator holds her own half in her own right and may deal with it, so the disposition may be set aside only as to the half belonging to the estate, which then returns to the estate to be administered again properly.

   The widow, appointed administrator, distributed nothing to the other heirs and instead registered a sale of the land to one of the five children. Another heir sued to set the transfers aside. The Supreme Court held that although section 1733 paragraph 2 is a special five-year bar, it addresses administration or distribution done in the ordinary way, not administration that is unlawful or involves misappropriation and concealment. Since no heir had ever received anything, the deceased left no will, the administrator knew the estate was due to all five children, and the transferee - himself one of them - knew it too and could not claim good faith merely because he had redeemed the land, the administration was wrongful and had not lawfully ended; the five-year period had not begun and the action was in time. The Court added, of its own motion under Civil Procedure Code sections 142(5), 246 and 247, that as the land was Sin Somros the administrator held half in her own right and could deal with it, so the sale could be set aside only as to the half belonging to the estate; the courts below had wrongly set aside the whole.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.