Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Praveer Chandra vs Aprajita & Ors on 31 October, 2019

Smt Satula Devi vs Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

103. The judgment in Praveer Chandra (supra), Ravi Khanna (supra) and Nirmala Devi (supra), as relied upon by Mr. Vikas Singh, to contend that the scope of partition suit is broader than that of the probate proceedings and both the proceedings can continue simultaneously are concerned, in the said cases the Courts were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH CS (OS) 203/2022 Page 52 of 81 Signing Date:10.04.2023 16:41:07 2023:DHC:2395 concerned with the suit for partition and the probate proceedings and it was in those facts that the Courts have held that ideally a partition suit should be heard along with the probate petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Geeta Tandon vs Dr Sunil Gomber & Ors on 10 April, 2023

74. Thus the period of limitation as has been explained in the aforementioned judgements, is applicable only when a challenge is raised to a Will or to cases where revocation of grant of Probate is sought. It may thus, be concluded that law of limitation would not be attracted in cases where the Will is relied upon by the defendant as a defence in the suit for partition. It also follows that any findings in respect of the Will would only be determinative of rights of the parties to the suit in personam and would be subject to any Probate proceedings that may be initiated by any third party as has also been held in Praveer Chandra (Supra). The question of limitation while considering the defence of the defendants based on the two Wills therefore, does not arise.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Dev Raj Chaudhry vs Raj Kumar & Ors. on 24 April, 2024

18. However, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Praveer Chandra Vs. Aprajita and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10820 was confronted with a similar question of stay of a partition suit till the determination of the probate petition. Reliance was placed on the observations in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka through LRs. Vs. Jasjit Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 507 where it was held that the Probate Court alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to grant the probate and a Civil Court is not entitled to examine the validity of the Will, but it was qualified by observing that it was in the context of seeking a probate of a will. Thus, a Civil Court cannot examine validity of a Will for the purpose of granting a probate which also implies that the scope of the issues to be determined in the probate petition is limited. In a civil suit where the Will is called in issue, the court can look into various surrounding circumstances including allegations relating to suspicious circumstances, if any. The genuineness of a Will, the Wills prior or subsequent to the execution of the Will relied upon, are issues which may not arise in a Probate petition. Thus, the scope of proceedings in a partition suit is broader than that in a Probate petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma vs The State on 11 May, 2026

15.20 There can be no dispute that the scope of adjudication in probate proceedings is limited in nature. In a petition seeking probate, the Court is primarily concerned with examining the genuineness, due execution, and validity of the Will. On the other hand, in a suit for possession, the Court is required to adjudicate upon a wider range of issues and surrounding circumstances, including questions relating to title, ownership, possession, and other civil rights of the parties--issues which ordinarily do not arise for consideration in probate proceedings. Thus, the ambit of a civil suit is substantially broader than that of a probate petition. 15.21 For the aforesaid reason, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Praveer Chandra vs Aprajita & Ors, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1902, has also observed that:
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shamita Singha vs Rashmi Ahluwalia on 18 June, 2020

8. Ms. Mishra has argued that the suit for partition having been instituted before the Testamentary Petition, her client’s suit must be allowed to proceed first and the Testamentary Petition could be transferred to Delhi High Court, if necessary. It is also her submission that major portion of the assets of the deceased lie in Delhi. A petition for transfer under Section 25 of the Code, however, is decided on consideration of the ends of justice. The “First past the post” is not the principle that can be applied in proceedings of this nature. Thus, the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Praveer Chandra (supra) would not aid the respondents here, as that proceeding was founded on a different principle embodied in Section 10 of the Code. I am of the opinion that the Probate Court having primacy in determining the question of grant of Letters of Administration or Probate, it would 13 be expedient for the ends of justice that the Bombay High Court, which is hearing the Testamentary petition, should decide the suit for partition as well. The plaintiffs in the suit for partition are also contesting the Testamentary Petition and they would not be greatly inconvenienced in prosecuting the suit before the Bombay High Court. The petitioners claim that the Will has been executed in Mumbai and the two attesting witnesses who have affirmed affidavits to support the Will are also from Mumbai. Copies of these affidavits appear at pages 39 and 41 of the paper book filed in connection with the Transfer Petition. These are also factors which I have considered in forming my opinion in favour of transfer of the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - A Bose - Full Document
1