Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Nabin Chandra Guha vs Nibaran Chandra Biswas And Ors. on 2 March, 1932
Moreover the case reported in 36 Cal WN 635 : (AIR 1932 Cal 734)
(Nabin Chandra v. Nibaran Chandra) has specifically repelled the argument
that the "possibility of an interest does not apply to the possibility of a party
filling a character which would give him an interest".
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
India Electric Works Ltd vs James Mantosh & Anr on 15 September, 1970
"5. In our opinion, the agreement for sale does not create an interest in
the property which is the subject-matter of the sale. Under Section 54 of the
T. P. Act an agreement for sale of immoveable property is a contract that a
sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It
does not create any interest in or charge on such property or in other words
the contract for sale does not create either an interest in or a charge on the
property. It at best is a contract for sale which is only an equitable right of a
purchaser and it does not create any interest in the land which is the
subject-matter of the contract In the case (India Elec. Works v. Mantosh) it
has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that even after a decree for
specific performance has been passed, the purchaser has no interest in the
property. From Section 54 of the T. P. Act it is clear to us that the agreement
for sale does not create of itself any interest in or charge on the property
which was contracted to toe sold between the parties.
Southern Bank Ltd. vs Kesardeo Ganeriwalla And Ors. on 1 March, 1957
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:-
Kartick Chandra Shaw vs Sm. Ranjita Pal And Ors. on 19 May, 1977
In Kartick Chandra
Shaw (supra) in deciding the right of an agreement holder to be added in the
probate proceeding it was held:-
Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra & Ors on 9 October, 2007
In Sunil Gupta Vs. Kiran Girhotra reported at 2007 (8) SCC 506 in
deciding the issue as to whether a transferee pendelite is a necessary party in a
probate proceeding it was held that citations are necessary to be made to only
those persons who, inter alia, claim through or under the Will or deny or dispute
the execution thereof.