Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Monmohini Guha vs Banga Chandra Das on 29 June, 1903

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

"That a Court exercising probate jurisdiction cannot grant or refuse probate of a Will by consent and without taking evidence is settled law. When a will is actually put before such a Court, the parties to the proceedings cannot say to the Court, that the probate be granted without proof of the due execution of the Will or probate refused without any evidence being led. This principle is well established and has for its basis the fact that a probate or an order refusing probate operates as a judgment in rem. Monmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das, (1904) ILR 31 Cal 357 and Sarada Kanta Das v. Gobinda Mohan Das, (1910) 12 Cal LJ 91. When a Will is put before the probate Court for proof, the parries before the Court can, however, enter into an agreement which changes the terms of the Will and say that probate be granted. The effect of such an agreement will be the withdrawal of the objections to the proof of the Will in consideration of the division of the estate in the manner agreed upon. In such a case the probate Court will have to take evidence about the Will and if it comes to the conclusion that the Will is valid must grant probate of the Will, as it stands and unmodified by the terms of the agreement but should make the agreement arrived at between the parties an annexure to the decree.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Vishanji Dungarmal Futnani vs Mohanlal Dungarmal Futnani And Ors. on 24 December, 1987

17. He submits that in this case the existence and validity of the will has been challenged. Even if the parties had accepted the will and were agreeable to give effect to its provisions, still in law it, is not permissible to construe an unprobated will or to give effect to the provisions thereof. Parties, by consent, cannot ask for grant of probate nor can give effect to the will unless the Probate Court grants probate of the will He strongly relies on (1904) 8 Cal WN 197 at p. 200 (Sm. Monmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das) where it was held :
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kunja Lal Chowdhury vs Kailash Chandra Chowdhury And Ors. on 24 August, 1910

6. It may also betaken as settled law, one that has been established by a long line of authorities, and indeed recognized by the Privy Council as far back as 1837, that in a contentious proceeding, probate may be granted in common form in consequence of a compromise between the disputants, resulting in the withdrawal of opposition, and that it cannot afterwards be revoked except on proof of fraud or circumvention practised either upon the Court or upon the parties. Nicol v. Askew 2 Moore's P.C.C. 88; Norman v. Strains L.R. 6 P.D. 219 : 50 L.J.P. 39 : 45 L.T. 191 : 39 W.R. 744; Evans v. Saunders 30 L.J.P.M. & A. 184; Harvey v. Allen 1 Sw. & Tr. 151; Roadnight v. Carter 3 Sw. & Tr. 421; Carrit v. Christian L.R. 2 P. & D. 181 : 24 L.T. 236; Warmingham v. Norman Irish R. 1 Ch. 272; Monmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Dass 31 C. 357 : 8 C.W.N. 197; Wytcherley v. Andrews L.R. 2 P. & D. 327 : 40 L.J.P. 57 : 25 L.T. 134 : 19 W.R. 1015.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Sarada Kanta Das vs Gobinda Mohan Das And Maitunnissa Bibi on 9 June, 1910

Now it has been ruled in the case of Monmohini v. Banga 31 C. 357, that, unless a Will is proved in some form, no grant of probate can be made merely on consent of parties. To put the matter in another way, an agreement or compromise as regards the genuineness and due execution of a Will, if its effect is to exclude evidence in proof of the Will, is not lawful within the meaning of this Rule, and no probate can be granted merely because the caveator consents to the grant; such an agreement is against public policy, for its object is to exclude enquiry into the genuineness of the Will which it is the duty of the Probate Court to make. In other words, as the grant of probate operates as a judgment in rem, the Court must be satisfied that the Will has been duly attested and executed before the grant is made.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Sundarambal Ammal And Kamalambal Ammal vs Yogavanagurukkal on 28 January, 1914

11. Coming to the last set of authorities, in Manmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das (1903) I.L.R. 31 C. 357 it was held that a grant of probate which establishes a right in rem cannot be made merely on the consent of parties and that an agreement or compromise which involve a right affecting not only the parties to the action but the public cannot be compromised so as to oblige the Court to pass a decree in terms thereof. The learned Judges say that " an agreement or compromise as regards this issue, if its effect is to exclude evidence in proof of the will is not lawful within the meaning of Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the Court has not an opportunity of judging for itself whether the will is the will of the deceased person and to what extent the rights of the parties will be affected, if the agreement be allowed to be made a rule of Court." The Court itself has certain duties in connection with a case in which the judgment in rem has to be pronounced, or in a case, which involves the right of the public or the right to a religious and charitable office, or the right of a minor or other incapacitated person. Where an agreement or compromise attempts to affect such rights after they are brought before the Court for adjudication, it seems to me, that it is not a lawful agreement or compromise.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M.Vijayalakshmi vs Sadhu A.N.Sircar Foundation on 29 August, 2008

"That a Court exercising probate jurisdiction cannot grant or refuse probate of a will consent and without taking evidence is settled law. When a Will is actually put before such a Court, the parties to the proceedings cannot say to the Court, that the probate be granted without proof of the due execution of the Will or probate refused without any evidence being led. This principle is well established and has for its basis the fact that a probate or an order refusing probate operates as a judgement in rem. Monmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das, (1904) ILR31 Cal 357 and Sarada Kanta Das v. Gobinda mohan Das, (1910) 12 cal LJ 91. When a will is put before the probate Court for proof the parties before the court can, however, enter into an agreement which changes the terms of the Will and say that probate be granted. The effect of such an agreement will be the withdrawal of the objections to the proof of the will in consideration of the division of the estate in the manner agreed upon. In such a case the probate Court will have to take evidence about the Will and if it comes to the conclusion that the Will is valid must grant probate of the Will, as it stands and unmodified by the terms of the agreement but should make the agreement arrived at between the parties an annexure to the decree
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mt. Khela Wati vs Chet Ram Khub Ram on 24 May, 1951

5. It is submitted that to provide for decision of cases is not an object which comes within the phrase "The promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with cooperative principles of a society" as used in Section 4 of the Act. At any rate no arbitration can be provided in regard to genuineness or otherwise of wills. Reliance is placed on page 39 of the Law of Arbitration in British India by N. N. Sarkar where the learned author has said that question of genuineness of a will cannot be referred to arbitration. Counsel also relied on 'Monmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das', 31 Cal 357, where it was held that even an agreement of compromise as regards the genuineness of a will and its due execution is not lawful if the effect is to exclude evidence in proof of the will, and unless a will is proved in some form, no grant of probate can be made merely on the consent of parties.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1