Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Vaman Ganpatrao Trilokekar And Ors. vs Malati Ramchandra Raut And Ors. on 18 November, 1987

Jyotsna Nalinikant Kilachand And ... vs Nandlal Kilachand Investment Pvt. Ltd. ... on 2 February, 1993

18. Numerous authorities have been cited by learned counsel in support of their respective submissions made before me. Mr. Chagla has relied upon an unreported judgment of this court delivered by Pendse J. Vaman Ganpatrao Trilokekar v. Malati R. Raut - Suit No. 400 of 1972 dated September 10, 1985 (Bom), wherein a valuer was appointed to value the share of the plaintiffs in the immovable properties.
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramesh Sippy vs Suresh Gopaldas Sippy & Ors on 4 July, 2012

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaman Ganpatrao (supra) held that a party could not claim any relief on the basis of rights flowing from Will unless a probate or letters of administration are obtained. However ratio of the aforesaid judgments cannot be pressed in service to advance a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:44:08 ::: 14 APP306-12 contention that even at interim stage the party is not entitled to refer to the fact that a Will has been executed. In both the judgments, as the facts therein will show, the legatee / executor were seeking a final relief based on a Will without there being any probate or Letters of Administration and such relief obviously could not be granted in view of the clear language of section 213 of Indian Succession Act. The position of law laid down in section 213 of the Act and the judgments referred to hereinabove cannot be stretched to import such a bar even at the hearing at interim stage of the proceedings. Such interpretation would mean that during the pendency of proceedings for probate or Letters of Administration the fact that there is a Will in existence cannot even be used at the interim stage in collateral proceedings. Submission advanced by Mr.Seervai based on the above judgment and section 213 of the Act cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document
1