Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Pandurang Shamrao Laud vs Dwarkadas Kalliandas on 4 August, 1932
28. The decisions of this Court relied upon by Ms. Agrawal,
namely Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Singh Chadha Vs. Davinder Kaur
Amardeep Singh Chadha (supra) and Pandurang Shamrao Laud and
others Vs. Dwarkadas Kalliandas and others (supra) are cases
where the Will of the deceased was being contested and where one of
the parties dealt with the estate of the deceased, detrimental to the
interest of the contesting parties. In view thereof, this Court
considered it necessary to appoint an administrator, with the
limitation on the power i.e. (i). the administrator has no right to
distribute the estate and (ii). he is subject to the immediate control
of the Court and shall act under its directions.
Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Singh Chadha @ ... vs Davinder Kaur Amardeep Singh Chadha on 10 May, 2019
28. The decisions of this Court relied upon by Ms. Agrawal,
namely Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Singh Chadha Vs. Davinder Kaur
Amardeep Singh Chadha (supra) and Pandurang Shamrao Laud and
others Vs. Dwarkadas Kalliandas and others (supra) are cases
where the Will of the deceased was being contested and where one of
the parties dealt with the estate of the deceased, detrimental to the
interest of the contesting parties. In view thereof, this Court
considered it necessary to appoint an administrator, with the
limitation on the power i.e. (i). the administrator has no right to
distribute the estate and (ii). he is subject to the immediate control
of the Court and shall act under its directions.
Rupali Mehta vs Smt. Tina Narinder Sain Mehta on 29 August, 2006
22. Mr. Kini has submitted that it is well settled that the
Testamentary Court/Probate Court cannot consider questions of
title to properties and/or whether the properties form part of the
estate of the deceased. He has in this context relied upon the
Tauseef 14 of 22
04-IA.1940.2019.doc
decision of this Court in the case of Rupali Mehta Vs. Tina Narinder
Sain Mehta (2006) 6 Mh.L.J. 786, wherein, this Court had
considered a case were Notice of Motion had been taken out by the
Plaintiff seeking appointment of Court Receiver as also interim
orders in relation to the property. This Court had upon a perusal of
Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act held that the Testamentary
Court while making an order for appointment of administrator does
not decide what is the property left behind by the deceased and does
not make an order in relation to the property.
Sameer Ramesh Vashi vs Rakesh Ramesh Vashi And 2 Ors on 7 January, 2019
30. The aforementioned decisions relied upon by Mr. Kini are
cases, where there were disputes with regard to the properties
forming part of the estate and relief sought for in that context.
Further, in Rakesh Ramesh Vashi (supra), this Court had considered
a case where the Applicant had accepted the contents of the Will and
the grievance was with regard to the manner in which the executor
had conducted himself. This Court found that that no case was made
out for appointment of administrator as the Applicant had himself
benefted from the bequest. In the present case, the Applicant has
restricted the relief to appointment of administrator pendente lite
and the validity of the Will has been contested. Ms. Agrawal has
infact submitted that disputes with regard to the properties forming
part of the estate cannot be adjudicated by the Testamentary Court
and for which separate proceedings, if required, shall be taken out.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
1