Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Kartick Chandra Shaw vs Sm. Ranjita Pal And Ors. on 19 May, 1977

In Re: Mrs. Mira Roy vs Unknown on 13 May, 1992

5. In the instant case, we have already summarised the relevant facts, which without any further effort, reveal how the proceeding has been dragged for 9 years ultimately requiring mandate from the Supreme Court for its expeditious disposal, such mandate again, would be frustrated if any contrary interpretation and conclusion about the extent of power vested in the District Delegate in the context of Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, are made. Here reference to an earlier will, without any details thereof indicating as to how the applicant/revisional petitioner would be benefitted therefrom, cannot be said to be sufficient material for treating the proceeding as a contentious one. In other words, in the absence of such particulars, it is difficult to accept the bona fides of the opposition or objection to the grant of probate. At best, it may indicate, to restate the language from the decision in the case of Crispin v. Doglioni noticed with approval by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaran Chandra Biswas, reported in 36 CWN 635, which again was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kartick v. Ranjita reported in 1977(2) CLJ 137, not possibility of an interest but possibility of a party filling a character, which would give him an interest in the result of setting aside a will-which is not sufficient to establish locus standi of the caveator.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1