Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Mutukdhari Singh vs Smt. Prem Debi And Ors. on 2 December, 1958
In Banwari
Lal Shriniwas vs. Kumari Kusum Bai AIR 1973 M. P. 69 and Mutukdhari
Singh vs. Prem Debi AIR 1959 Patna 570, Pritam Dass vs. Nand Ram AIR
1966 Punjab 88, it is held that any interest, however slight and even bare
MPC no.-- 13/06/05 Page 2/3
possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose a
testamentary document. Absence of citation on a person who ought to have
been cited would be a defect of substance which will be deemed to be 'Just
Cause' as contemplated by illustration (ii) of section 263 of the Act and vitiates
the grant. In that situation, applicant is not required to prove that Will is a
forgery but is on the grantee to prove that the Will is a valid one. Thus non
impleadment of proper or necessary party in the proceeding for obtaining
probate constitutes a just cause for revocation of the probate or letter of
administration already granted.
Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs Kirandeep Kaur & Ors on 3 April, 2008
In the probate/Letter of Administration matters, the limitation of
filing the petition is three years under Article 137 of Limitation Act. Supreme
Court in Kunvarjeet Singh vs. Kirandeep Kaur 2008 XII AD (SC) 580 also
held that probate petition is required to be filed within period of three years
from the date when right to sue accrues.
Sm. Annapurna Kumar vs Subodh Chandra Kumar on 28 July, 1969
In this regard reliance can be placed upon case law Annapurna
Kumar vs. Subodh Chandra Kumar AIR 1970 Calcutta 433.
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Banwarilal Shriniwas vs Kumari Kusum Bai And Ors. on 27 July, 1972
In Banwari
Lal Shriniwas vs. Kumari Kusum Bai AIR 1973 M. P. 69 and Mutukdhari
Singh vs. Prem Debi AIR 1959 Patna 570, Pritam Dass vs. Nand Ram AIR
1966 Punjab 88, it is held that any interest, however slight and even bare
MPC no.-- 13/06/05 Page 2/3
possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose a
testamentary document. Absence of citation on a person who ought to have
been cited would be a defect of substance which will be deemed to be 'Just
Cause' as contemplated by illustration (ii) of section 263 of the Act and vitiates
the grant. In that situation, applicant is not required to prove that Will is a
forgery but is on the grantee to prove that the Will is a valid one. Thus non
impleadment of proper or necessary party in the proceeding for obtaining
probate constitutes a just cause for revocation of the probate or letter of
administration already granted.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Pritam Dass vs Nand Ram on 5 May, 1965
In Banwari
Lal Shriniwas vs. Kumari Kusum Bai AIR 1973 M. P. 69 and Mutukdhari
Singh vs. Prem Debi AIR 1959 Patna 570, Pritam Dass vs. Nand Ram AIR
1966 Punjab 88, it is held that any interest, however slight and even bare
MPC no.-- 13/06/05 Page 2/3
possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose a
testamentary document. Absence of citation on a person who ought to have
been cited would be a defect of substance which will be deemed to be 'Just
Cause' as contemplated by illustration (ii) of section 263 of the Act and vitiates
the grant. In that situation, applicant is not required to prove that Will is a
forgery but is on the grantee to prove that the Will is a valid one. Thus non
impleadment of proper or necessary party in the proceeding for obtaining
probate constitutes a just cause for revocation of the probate or letter of
administration already granted.
1