Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.62 seconds)Section 11 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Bhaishankar Nanabhai vs The Municipal Corporation Of Bombay And ... on 18 April, 1907
13. In my opinion neither Clause 12, Letters Patent, nor Section 9, Civil P.C., gives the original side of this Court jurisdiction to entertain a suit for revocation of a grant of probate made in the testamentary jurisdiction on the ground that the will is not a genuine will. I would indeed go further and be inclined to hold, if it were necessary that no civil suit lies to revoke a probate on any ground, for, it is my view that it was the intention of the Legislature that the exclusive remedy in every case should be an application under Section 263, Succession Act. As an illustration of this principle I would refer to the judgment of Jenkins C.J. in Bhaishankar Nanabhai v. Municipal Corporation of Bomby (1907) 31 Bom 604. Moreover, the language of Section 264(1), Succession Act
the District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district
indicates to my mind that the jurisdiction to revoke is limited to the Probate Court. I hold therefore that the issue of jurisdiction must be determined in favour of the defendants. In these circumstances the remaining points argued can be briefly dealt with. As to the point taken with regard to res judicata, it would certainly seem at first sight that McNair J.'s decision, that the appellants before him, who are plaintiffs 1 and 2 before me, had not such an interest in the subject-matter of the residual bequest in the earlier will to justify their bringing the application for revocation, binds them at least. I will assume it to be so, and I will also assume that it would be possible to dismiss them from the suit and permit it to continue at the instance of the other plaintiffs. The question then arises whether McNair J.'s decision binds the plaintiffs that remain.
Kumaravelu Chettiar vs T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar on 11 April, 1933
In Kumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Aiyar , the Privy Council held that in a representative suit the decision in a former suit does not operate as res judicata by force of Section 11, Civil P.C., Expl. 6, unless the former suit was instituted in compliance with Order 1, Rule 8, namely by permission of the Court, the Court giving notice as therein prescribed.
Article 180 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Probate and Administration Act, 1977
Section 9 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Kurrutulain Bahadur vs Nuzbat-Ud-Dowla Abbas Hossein Khan on 5 July, 1905
10. In taking this view Harington J. was influenced by Form No. 115 (2) in Schedule IV, Part E, C.P. Code of 1882. This Form is omitted from the present Code. In any case, Harington J.'s observation cannot justify a suit to revoke a grant instituted in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Reference has been made to the observations of the Judicial Committee in Kurrutulain Bahadur v. Nazbatuddowla Abbaas Hussain Khan (1906) 33 Cal.