Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.84 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
In order to sustain the proposition or make it more acceptable to us, he placed great reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SRI RAM PASRICHA v. JAGANNATH AND ORS. The passage relied upon by the learned Counsel occurs in Paragraph-28 and is as follows:
Bai Parvatibai vs Raghunath Lakshman on 25 July, 1940
13. Again, in the case of BAI PARVATIBAI v. RAGHUNATH LAKSHMAN, AIR 1941 Bombay 60 Kania, J., as he then was held that a caveat cannot be sustained under Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on the ground that the property was joint family estate. No doubt, at the time the decision was rendered, the Hindu Succession Act was not in force. The customary Hindu Law did not provide for the making of a Will of the undivided coparcenery interest of coparcener. It is only after corning into force of the Hindu Succession Act, such a power is conferred on a coparcener or any other person claiming under other schools of law than the Mitakshara School. This certainly furthers the view expressed by the learned Probate Judge despite the argument to the contrary by Mr. Holla that a distinction must be made between the position of a coparcener before 1956 and after 1956. We do find that after 1956, the position is made harder for a coparcener to enter caveat in regard to the Will of a deceased coparcener in respect of the joint Hindu family property. When there was no right of disposition if a coparcener could not be a caveator in terms of Section 283 or 284 of the Succession Act, then his position after the Hindu acquired the right to make a Will would be much worse.
Section 4 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M.K. Sowbagiammal And Anr. vs Komalangi Ammal By Guardian Kandaswami ... on 16 January, 1928
12. Though the language is not identical, the test applied is similar to the test applied by Venkatasubba Rao, J., in M.K. Sowbhagiammal's case. We may point out that the facts of this case are clearly covered by the ruling of the learned Judge of the Bombay Probate Court in as much as he clearly held that any portion of the estate, even if owned by a caveator, would not entitle him to come in as a caveator in the guise of having any interest in the estate of the deceased.
Section 284 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
D.S. Sriramiah Setty vs Smt. D. Kanthamma on 25 September, 1970
In the case of D.S. SRIRAMIAH SETTY v. SMT. D. KANTHAMMA, AIR 1971 Mysore 1483 Chandrashekhar, J., as he then was, chose to follow the later ruling of the Madras High
Court as the one giving the correct view of the law. Regard being had to that, the learned Probate Judge felt himself bound by the decision already rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court and therefore held that the caveat was not maintainable and consequently declared that the caveator had no locus standi to lodge the caveat and it was accordingly ordered.
Swatantranandji vs Lunidaram Jangaldas on 16 March, 1936
11. Next case which is of some relevance to decide, is the case of SWATANTRANANDJI v. LUNIDARAM JANGALDAS, AIR 1937 Bombay 397. In that case, the learned Probate Judge in the High Court of Bombay ruled as follows:
1