Section 1754: Prescription on inheritance claims

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9992/2560 (2017) ★ Landmark

   Section 1754 bars an inheritance action after one year from the death, or from when the statutory heir knew or ought to have known of it, and in any event after ten years from the death. Section 1748 paragraph 1 is an exception for an heir in possession of undivided estate property - but it does not follow that one heir sole possession is possession on behalf of the others. No provision of law supports that, and whether possession is for the possessor or for co-heirs turns on the facts of each case; the contrary view would make section 1754 unusable in every case. Where one heir held the land as her own separate property, was never the administrator, and no other heir ever shared possession or asked for partition, section 1748 paragraph 1 does not apply and the ten-year bar operates. A person taking title from that heir succeeds to her right to plead the bar under section 1755. (Grand Chamber 15/2560.)

   The deceased died on 17 September 1989. His widow had held the disputed land in her own name both before and after his death, treating it throughout as her separate property; she was never appointed administrator, and the heir who was appointed dealt only with bank deposits and stated there was no other estate. A child of the marriage sued on 1 March 2013 for a one-seventh share, asserting that her mother had possessed on her behalf. The Supreme Court, sitting in Grand Chamber, held that evidence to be a bare assertion by the plaintiff alone; that one heir sole possession is not by law possession for the others, since otherwise section 1754 could never operate; and that on these facts - no demand for partition, no objection when the land was subdivided into seven plots, no assertion in earlier litigation that it was marital property - section 1748 paragraph 1 did not apply. The claim was therefore barred under section 1754 paragraphs 1 and 4, and the defendant, taking her title from the mother, could plead the bar under section 1755. Both courts below were reversed and the claim dismissed.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 892/2562 (2019)

   The §1754 inheritance prescription and the §1733 administration prescription are distinct; a court may not apply the ten-year bar under §1754 where the defendant pleaded only the one-year bar.

   The defendants raised both §1754 paragraph one (one-year prescription for heirs) and §1733 paragraph two (five-year administration prescription). The court held these are distinct prescriptions serving different types of claims; applying §1754's ten-year absolute bar where defendants had pleaded only the one-year bar was an error. The court distinguished the five-year administration prescription from the inheritance prescription.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13384/2558 (2015)

   A creditor's one-year prescription under §1754 paragraph three runs from the date the creditor received confirmed notice (actual or constructive) of the debtor's death.

   A creditor sent a demand letter to the debtor at the debtor's address; the letter was returned with a notation that the debtor had died. The court held that when a creditor receives confirmed notice that the debtor is dead, that constitutes knowledge or constructive knowledge of the death for purposes of §1754 paragraph three; the one-year period for creditors of the estate runs from that date.

   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.