Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.47 seconds)

Sisir Kumar Chandra And Anr. vs Sm. Monorama Chandra And Ors. on 7 January, 1972

In this connection Mr. Mullick relied on two cases, namely, reported in AIR 1940 Cal 286 (Rai Bahadur Pannalal v. Lala Hansraj Gupta) and AIR 1944 Cal 385 (Kailash Chandra v. Nanda Kumar), and submitted that a suit for revocation of a grant of probate does not lie and the proper remedy would be to file an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. Mr. Mullick invited my attention to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and illustration (1) of Section 263 and submitted that the grant of probate may be revoked or annulled if the Court by which the grant was made had no Jurisdiction. Mr. Mullick further submitted that Manick Lal attained majority in 1959 but this suit had been filed on April 30, 1971 and therefore this suit is barred by the law of limitation. Mr. Mullick further submitted that even if the suit lies there is no cause of action in the instant suit. Further there was great delay in making this application. As such no order should be passed on this application.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Rukn-Ul-Mulk S. Abdul Wajid And Ors. vs Gajambal Ramalingam And Ors. on 6 January, 1950

In Pannalal v. Hansraj Gupta, A.I.R. (27) 1940 Cal. 236,: (I.L.R. (1940) 1 Cal. 14) where a suit was filed for declaration that the will was a forgery and the grant of probate which was obtained fraudulently should be revoked, Panckridge J. expressed the view that Section 264(1), Succession Act empowers the District Judge to grant or revoke probates thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1