Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Southern Bank Ltd. vs Kesardeo Ganeriwalla And Ors. on 1 March, 1957

A.Hafeezur Rahman vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 24 March, 2021

The Calcutta High Court in Southern Bank Ltd. v. Kesardeo Ganeriwalla, AIR 1958 Cal 377 observed that there is no system in India like the English common form procedure, as the system of grant of probate in India does not contain ‘the reason which fortifies the existence of the English rule’, namely that in England there is no judicial determination of the right to probate. In India, judicial determination is a matter of course. Thus, we agree that there cannot be a common form of probate in India. Be that as it may, since the evidence of Mrs. Mathias was recorded at the time of grant of probate by the competent Court of law, it is clear that the probate was granted in favour of Mrs. Mathias after publishing Citation at Mangalore and after due application of mind by the Court. Hence it was solemn form only. Since the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act state that a probate can be revoked on grounds of just cause, it was open for the appellant to approach the Court of law by filing an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking revocation. As the appellant has approached the Court of law, and her application is being dealt with by a rigorous process of adjudication upto this Court, there is no question of common form being an obstacle to her 10/26 C.M.A.No.96 of 2012 ability to challenge the probate. The question raised by the appellant on the distinction between common form and solemn form is academic.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Kartick Chandra Shaw vs Sm. Ranjita Pal And Ors. on 19 May, 1977

8. In our opinion, therefore, a party to the agreement for purchase has no right or interest in the immovable property left by the testator and as such, has no locus standi to oppose the application for grant of probate under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act. The view we take, is supported by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court (Southern Bank v. K. Ganeriwalla) in which it has been held that a creditor of the deceased testator has no locus standi to oppose the grant of a probate. The Division Bench of this Court in considering the principle of Privy Council's decision came to the finding that the creditor of an heir of the deceased is not entitled to citation and on that ground the probate cannot be revoked. At p. 455 (of Cal WN): (at p. 384 of AIR Cal) their Lordships held as follows:--
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mrs. Lynette Fernandes W/O C.F.G. ... vs Mrs. Gertie Mathias (Since Dead By Lrs. ... on 30 November, 2006

In India there is no system like the English common form procedure. In the English procedure, there is really no judicial determination of the right to the probate, out the probate is issued as a matter of course on certain formalities being complied with. The English common form grant is as a matter of right in the absence of all other parties interested but there in no such right in any applicant for probate anywhere in India. The court may under Section 283, if it so desires, call upon any party interested to appear in the proceedings of the grant and the applicant for probate has no right to object to it. The fact that the court has not in any particular case called upon any party interested to appear in the proceedings cannot render the probate granted in that case one in common form and entitle that party to invoke the English law which would entitle such party to call in the probate and require the will to be proved in solemn form. In the very same decision, the position between the English common form procedure and the Indian procedure have been discussed and they are as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - V Jagannathan - Full Document

S.P.Kaveri Achi vs C.T.Ramasamy on 4 July, 2008

13. The other judgment on which reliance has been placed was also delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Southern Bank Limited Vs. Kesardeo Ganeriwalla and others reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 377. In that case, the learned Judges considered Section 263 of the Act and held that Section 263 is exhaustive. No one is disputing the aforesaid principle laid down in the said judgment. But, in the instant case, where probate has been granted ex parte, the provisions of Section 263 will not apply. But, what will apply are the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 as has been held in the case of Judhisthir Dutta discussed herein above. The decision in the case of Southern Bank is not of much assistance to the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Arun Baran Coomar vs Sanjay Kumar Sharma on 4 August, 2015

8. In our opinion, therefore, a party to the agreement for purchase has no right or interest in the immovable property left by the testator and as such, has no locus standi to oppose the application for grant of probate under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act. The view we take, is supported by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court (Southern Bank v. K. Ganeriwalla) in which it has been held that a creditor of the deceased testator has no locus standi to oppose the grant of a probate. The Division Bench of this Court in considering the principle of Privy Council's decision came to the finding that the creditor of an heir of the deceased is not entitled to citation and on that ground the probate cannot be revoked. At p. 455 (of Cal WN): (at p. 384 of AIR Cal) their Lordships held as follows:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Lynette Fernandes vs Gertie Mithias (D) By Lrs. on 8 November, 2017

9. The appellant further contended that the probate was granted to Mrs. Gertie Mathias in ‘common form’ and not in ‘solemn form’ and thus, it is open to challenge such a grant of probate. Such argument may not arise in this matter. In England, common form of grant of probate is a matter of right in the absence of all other interested parties, but there is no such right for any applicant who seeks a grant of probate in India. A party seeking the revocation of grant of probate cannot later resort to English law and contend as mentioned supra. The Calcutta High Court in Southern Bank Ltd. v. Kesardeo Ganeriwalla, AIR 1958 Cal 377 observed that there is no system in India like the English common form procedure, as the system of grant of 13 probate in India does not contain ‘the reason which fortifies the existence of the English rule’, namely that in England there is no judicial determination of the right to probate. In India, judicial determination is a matter of course. Thus, we agree that there cannot be a common form of probate in India. Be that as it may, since the evidence of Mrs. Mathias was recorded at the time of grant of probate by the competent Court of law, it is clear that the probate was granted in favour of Mrs. Mathias after publishing Citation at Mangalore and after due application of mind by the Court. Hence it was solemn form only. Since the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act state that a probate can be revoked on grounds of just cause, it was open for the appellant to approach the Court of law by filing an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking revocation. As the appellant has approached the Court of law, and her application is being dealt with by a rigorous process of adjudication upto this Court, there is no question of common form being an obstacle to her ability to challenge the probate. The question raised by the appellant on the distinction between common form and solemn form is academic.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 24 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document
1   2 Next