Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 118 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (Since Deceased) ... vs Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Boseand ... on 16 February, 1962

G.Ganesan vs P.Sundari on 12 January, 2011

19.The learned Single Judge, after having referred to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Hem Nolini v. Isolyne Sarojbashini (cited supra) and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Cherichi v. Ittianam (cited supra), has held that those were the cases where the title was claimed under an unprobated Will and that was the reason why the Courts took the view that such unprobated will could not be proved in evidence. In essence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that no right or title is claimed under the unprobated Will in the instant case, by the respondents and therefore, the contention of the respondents that the unprobated Will which is sought to be proved is only for collateral purpose is sustainable. In view of our foregoing discussions, we regret, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Mercury Travels (India) Ltd & Others vs Shri Mahabir Prasad And Anr on 21 December, 2000

In these cases there was a dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant (Ratanlal Bansilal and others Vs. Kishorilal Goenka and others (supra) and Santilal Dulichand Shah Vs. Ramesh Chandra Guzrati (supra) or the will in question projected by one of the parties which was not probated related to the case under Succession Act ( Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah Vs. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose and others (supra) or contract of tenancy was alleged to be made by three landlords but defendants were denying the existence of three landlords and were accepting only one of them as landlords.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - A Kumar - Full Document

Surjit Andors vs Jai Pal And Ors on 10 January, 2017

[18]. Since even in the amended plaint only mutation No.2593 was assailed, therefore, plaintiffs never relied upon the Will in question. Defendants never filed any counter claim seeking to establish their rights on the basis of Will dated 18.06.2001 or challenging the Will dated 25.10.2000 executed by Chandgi. Since the plaintiffs were not relying upon the Will dated 18.06.2001, therefore, the proposition of law as enshrined in Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased)'s case (supra) would have barred the initiation of proceedings at the instance of defendants in the Court of law without being any probate of the Will in question.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

N.Chandrasekaran vs Arulmighu Thiruvatteeswarar ... on 31 January, 2020

27. Mere probate of the Will is not confirmation of title as the probate proceedings are limited to the genuineness of the Will propounded and nothing more. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hem Nolini Judah vs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose [AIR 1962 SC 1471], the Temple need not challenge the order of probate proceedings as the probate Court cannot decide the title of the any property mentioned in the Will. The first defendant had demolished the entire Mandapam when the first appeal was pending. Further Ex.B-3 is the copy of the plaint which is only for the relief of injunction and due to wrong survey number it was not proceeded with. The other corporation tax did not confer title for the defendants. The defendants cannot take up the plea of adverse possession without admitting the title of the temple to the suit property. As per section 109 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the limitation will not apply for recovery of properties of religious institutions. The said amendment was made under the Act 28 of 2003 and the suit had been filed in the year 1996 as the Amended Act, applied to the pending proceedings also as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Arulmigu Kolavizhi Amman Temple, G.N. Chetty Street, 23/88 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.568 of 2019 Mylapore-4.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Laxmi Housing Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sharad Subramanyan & Others on 31 July, 2015

In Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah's case (supra), the plaintiff- respondent claiming as a legatee under a will of which she had obtained letters of administration filed a suit for declaration of her title in regard to the property included in the will. She sought to establish that the ownership of that property vested in her testator as a legatee under a will executed in favour of her testator by another person. No probate or letters of administration had however been obtained in regard to that will. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the questions of title are not decided in proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sharmila Vijay Shetty vs B And A Ltd. And 2 Ors on 13 June, 2025

41. Before concluding, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the opposite party No.3. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Naraindas Lilaram Adnani (supra) and Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (supra) being judgments of Three Judges' Bench were binding and the judgments in the case of Binapani Kar Chowdhury (supra) and FGP Limited (supra) could not be said to be good law. This Court in the previous segments of the present judgment had duly dealt with the said judgments rendered by the Three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court and opined that the said judgments were not applicable to the present facts.
Gauhati High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D Baruah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next