Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Dharani Mohan Roy vs Pramatha Nath Roy And Anr. on 10 January, 1936

In The Matter Of The Goods Of Late Km. ... vs Shailendra Nath Mukherjee And Others on 15 October, 2020

105. Reliance placed on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Smt. Usharani Roy (supra) is also misplaced, inasmuch as, i.e. the judgment on the issue of validity of a subsequent Will and the rights of the Caveator. In fact, it has been held that the Caveator may not be interested in obtaining the Probate of the second Will, is, in our opinion, really immaterial. A Will may be revoked in various ways as laid down in Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Allahabad High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Kerala Financial Corporation on 17 November, 1982

The other decision was that of a Division Bench in Dharani Mohan v. Pramatha Nath (AIR 1936 Cal 283). This was again a case where the title deeds reached the hands of the mortgagor who made use of them for creating a subsequent encumbrance over the property, inducing the puisne mortgagee to believe that there was no subsisting encumbrance over the property. in both the cases, inasmuch as the prior mortgagee was found guilty of gross neglect in not having taken care to keep the title deed deposited with it in its custody, but allowed it to pass into the hands of the mortgagors to enable them to deceive the puisne mortgages who had no notice of the prior mortgages, the Court held that Section 78 would apply and prior mortgagee would be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee. The rulings given in these decisions on these facts have no relevance to the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ms. M. A. I. Kovoor @ Anna Kovoor vs Mr Thomas Ipe Kovoor (Jr.) on 22 July, 2016

21 The judgment in the case of Usharani Roy Vs Hemlata Roy AIR (33) 1946 Calcutta 40 dealt with a case where a caveator set up a subsequent Will of the testator revoking the Will set up by the petitioner and in a petition for grant of probate, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the caveator must propound the Will set up by him. This judgment is also of little help in the present case, since as aforesaid, the procedure required to be undertaken for grant of probate may not be applicable to the facts of the present case, but that question is left open in view of the present petition for grant of Letter of Administration under S.278 of the Act found to be not maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad Tulshan, Since Deceased ... vs Yasheel Jain on 4 May, 2007

In our opinion, in the exceptional case, cited by the Division Bench, the moment the subsequent Will revoking the earlier one is itself revoked, the person, claiming interest solely on the basis of the second one mentioned above, will automatically lose interest in the estate of the testator and consequently, will also be deprived of the right to lodge caveat in the proceedings for grant of Probate of the first one referred to above although he can pray for revocation of grant of Probate of the first Will, inasmuch as, in order to apply for revocation of grant, the existence of a caveatable interest in the estate of the testator is unnecessary. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the observation of the said Division Bench so far the same relates to the said exceptional circumstance mentioned; however, the view we have taken is in conformity with the overall one taken in that decision; but the case we are dealing with, being based on a prior Will, the principles laid down in that case do not strictly apply to the present one.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Ketan Garach vs Ramesh Garach And Others on 20 April, 2016

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if the later Will is decided on merits then the authenticity of the first Will is immaterial and there can be only one Will under which the parties were derived their benefits. Mr. Chowdhury has referred to an unreported judgment of this Court in Priyamvada Devi Birla (G.A. No. 3879 of 2004 arising out of PLA No. 242 of 2004), where it has been observed 2 that if the probate is granted in the later instrument the former instrument will automatically fail. Per contra, Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Tulshan (D) by LR vs. Yasheel Jain, reported at AIR 2007 Cal 218 (para 21), where the Hon'ble Division Bench has referred to an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Usharani Roy vs. Hemlata Roy, reported at AIR 1946 Cal 40 wherein it was held that in such an eventuality two separate proceedings should be heard analogously by giving opportunities to the contesting claimants to contest those proceedings by lodging separate caveat in the proceedings.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arvind Garach vs Ramesh Garach And Others on 20 April, 2016

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if the later Will is decided on merits then the authenticity of the first Will is immaterial and there can be only one Will under which the parties were derived their benefits. Mr. Chowdhury has referred to an unreported judgment of this Court in Priyamvada Devi Birla (G.A. No. 3879 of 2004 arising out of PLA No. 242 of 2004), where it has been observed 2 that if the probate is granted in the later instrument the former instrument will automatically fail. Per contra, Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Tulshan (D) by LR vs. Yasheel Jain, reported at AIR 2007 Cal 218 (para 21), where the Hon'ble Division Bench has referred to an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Usharani Roy vs. Hemlata Roy, reported at AIR 1946 Cal 40 wherein it was held that in such an eventuality two separate proceedings should be heard analogously by giving opportunities to the contesting claimants to contest those proceedings by lodging separate caveat in the proceedings.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1