Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Behari Lal Ram Charan vs Karam Chand Sahni And Ors. on 15 September, 1966

Vivek Singhal vs Smt.Vijaya Rani Singhal on 22 September, 2025

7. The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni [Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni, 1966 SCC OnLine P&H 226 : AIR 1968 P&H 108] : (SCC OnLine P&H) ?3. From a bare perusal of these two sections it is apparent that the objection of Defendant 1 on the preliminary issue raised by him in the trial court was without any substance. Clause (a) of Section 57 read with sub-section (2) of Section 213, it would appear, applies to those cases where the property and parties are situate in the territories of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, while clause (b) applies to those cases where the parties are not residing in those territories but the property involved is situate within those territories. Clause (c) of Section 57, however, is not relevant for the present purposes. Therefore, where both the person and property of any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, are outside the territories mentioned above, the rigour of Section 213, sub-section (1), is not attracted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus vs Mr. Lila Deane & Others on 10 July, 2001

Interestingly in Behari Lal Ram Charan Vs. Karam Chand Sahni & Others (supra) the Court while holding that probate of will not necessary in case where both the person and property of any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina are outside the territories specified in S.57(a) and, therefore, in Delhi probate was not required, the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Hem Judah (since deceased) and after her legal representative Mrs. Marlean Wilkinson Vs. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose and others (supra) was distinguished in the following manner:
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 22 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Sri. G. Lokeshwarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2023

7. The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni [Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni, 1966 SCC OnLine P&H 226 : AIR 1968 P&H 108] : (SCC OnLine P&H) "3. From a bare perusal of these two sections it is apparent that the objection of Defendant 1 on the preliminary issue raised by him in the trial court was without any substance. Clause (a) of Section 57 read with sub-section (2) of Section 213, it would appear, applies to those cases where the property and parties are situate in the territories of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, while clause (b) applies to those cases where the parties are not residing in those territories but the property involved is situate within those territories. Clause (c) of Section 57, however, is not relevant for the present purposes.
Karnataka High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Jugdish Chander vs Punjab National Bank on 24 February, 1997

(15) Reference is made to the judgments reported as Joginder Chander Vs. Apurna Dassi 1909 Indian Cases 859; Soona Mayana Chetty Vs. Soona Navena Air 1916 Privy Council 202; (Tikait) Mahabir Prasad Vs. Bhupal Ram Air 1929 Patna 694; Mr. Kulwanta Bewa Vs. Karan Chand ; Bhudeh Chandra Vs. Bhikshakar Pattanaik Air 1942 Patna 120; Venkateswara Sarma Vs. S.N. Venkatasa Air 1941 Madras 449; P.S. Nagaranjan Vs. Robert Hotz ; Lahore Enamelling Co. Ltd. V. A.K. Bhalla Air 1958 Punjab 342; Mrs. Julieta Vs. Lila Coutinho ; Ram Chand Ganesh Dass Vs. Sardara Singh ; Dr. Mrs. Joginder Kaur Malik Vs. MalikAnup Singh ; M/s Behari Imi Ram Charan V. Karam Chand ; Special Land Acq.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rangaswami Naicker vs Rangammal (Died By Proposed L.R. And ... on 26 June, 1968

Thus Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act will not apply so as to oust the jurisdiction of the executing Court, because it clearly enacts that so far as a will made by a Hindu is concerned, it will only apply where the will is of the classes specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57, and if we turn to Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57, they refer to a will executed within the City of Madras or relating to property situated in Madras City. But here, the will was executed outside the City of Madras and the properties also are situated in Coimbatore District. Hence Section 213 will not apply. See also the decision in Behan Lal v. Karam Chand .
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next