Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing George Anthony Harris vs Millicent Spencer on 11 August, 1932

Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary vs Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka on 16 October, 2025

(C) The judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court in George Anthony Harris Vs. Millicent Spencer, AIR (1933) Bom. 370 and Sharad Shankarrao Mane and etc. Vs. Ashabai Shripati Mane, AIR (1997) Bom. 275 do not lay 44 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2025 21:58:45 ::: down the correct position of law in the context of Section 263 of the Succession Act. Resultantly, we uphold the view of the learned Single Judge (Manish Pitale, J.) from which order the present reference arises.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - M S Karnik - Full Document

Shireen Dinshaw Mistry vs Bilkish Yunus Namakwala on 22 September, 2025

99) The contention that section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would bar the Petitioner, on the ground that they are neither legal representatives nor have obtained probate, may at first appear plausible. However, the submission overlooks the principle laid down in George Harris vs. Millicent Spencer (supra) where Court held that a person acquiring an interest in the estate after the Testator's death, in case of intestacy, is entitled seek revocation.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vandana Janardhan Salve Nee Vandana ... vs Shrieen Dinshaw Mistry on 22 September, 2025

99) The contention that section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would bar the Petitioner, on the ground that they are neither legal representatives nor have obtained probate, may at first appear plausible. However, the submission overlooks the principle laid down in George Harris vs. Millicent Spencer (supra) where Court held that a person acquiring an interest in the estate after the Testator's death, in case of intestacy, is entitled seek revocation.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bilkish Yunus Namakwala vs Shireen Dinshaw Mistry on 22 September, 2025

99) The contention that section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would bar the Petitioner, on the ground that they are neither legal representatives nor have obtained probate, may at first appear plausible. However, the submission overlooks the principle laid down in George Harris vs. Millicent Spencer (supra) where Court held that a person acquiring an interest in the estate after the Testator's death, in case of intestacy, is entitled seek revocation.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vandana Janardhan Salve Nee Vandana ... vs Bilkish Yunus Namakwala on 22 September, 2025

99) The contention that section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would bar the Petitioner, on the ground that they are neither legal representatives nor have obtained probate, may at first appear plausible. However, the submission overlooks the principle laid down in George Harris vs. Millicent Spencer (supra) where Court held that a person acquiring an interest in the estate after the Testator's death, in case of intestacy, is entitled seek revocation.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manek Dara Sukhadwalla vs Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Anr on 25 July, 2012

"The Defendant contends in the first place that this suit is not maintainable on the ground that the Plaintiff has no interest in the estate of the deceased. He is admittedly not an heir as on an intestacy, and his only interest would be as a legatee under a will which according to the Defendant was destroyed by the deceased with the intention of revoking it. It is laid down in Mortimer on Probate Law and Practice Edn. Of 1911, p.585 (B), that an action for revocation of letters of administration granted on an intestacy may be brought by a person claiming an interest under an alleged will of the deceased for the purpose of having the grant revoked in order that he may obtain probate of the alleged will under which he claims to be interested. The contest in such a case lies between the administrator to whom letters of administration have been granted and the person alleging the existence of the will, and the contest which relate to the validity of the will is decided in one and the same proceedings. If the will propounded is invalid, the Court pronounces against it, and the grant is re-delivered out to the administrator on a copy of the decree being filed. If the will is valid, the grant is revoked, and probate is ordered to issue in solemn form of law to the person entitled thereto.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - A A Sayed - Full Document

Lt. Col. Mahendri Kumari vs Shri Manish Kumar on 9 March, 2009

In this regard reliance can be placed on a judgment in case titled as George Anthony Harris Vs. Millicent Spencer reported as AIR 1933 Bombay 370. In the said case it was held that a person applying for revocation for the grant must show that he has an interest in the alleged Will i.e. in the estate of the deceased disposed of by the alleged Will. There must be some interest and even the slightest interest is sufficient to apply for revocation.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Seema Nagpal vs Ms. Anchal Jolly on 5 December, 2008

In this regard reliance can be placed on a judgment in case titled as George Anthony Harris Vs. Millicent Spencer reported as AIR 1933 Bombay 370. In the said case it was held that a person applying for revocation for the grant must show that he has an interest in the alleged Will i.e. in the estate of the deceased disposed of by the alleged Will. There must be some interest and even the slightest interest is sufficient to apply for revocation.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next