Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.63 seconds)Section 141 in The Probate and Administration Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Probate and Administration Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Kurrutulain Bahadur vs Nuzbat-Ud-Dowla Abbas Hossein Khan on 5 July, 1905
It has not been disputed that, under the Rule of English Law, as laid down in the cases of Newell v. Weeks (1814) 2 Phillimore 224; Wytcherley v. Andrews (1871) I.R. 2 P. & D. 327 : 40 L.J.P. 57 : 25 L.T. 134 : 19 W.R. 1015; Young v. Holloway (1895) P. 87 : 64 L.J.P. 55 : 11 R. 596 : 72 L.T. 118 : 43 W.R. 429, a person who is not a party to proceedings in the probate Court, in which the validity of a Will is questioned, is bound by the result if he was aware of the proceedings and had a right to intervene Kurrutulain Bahadur v. Nuzbat-ud-dowla 32 I.A. 244 : 33 C. 116 : 1 C.L.J. 594 : 9 C.W.N. 988 : 2 A.L.J. 758 : 15 M.L.J. 336 : 7 Bom. L.R. 876, In re Pitamber 5 B. 638.
Debendra Nath Dutt And Banku Behary ... vs Administrator-General Of Bengal on 23 March, 1906
At any rule, it is obvious that, if the petitioner were not allowed to intervene, he would be driven to have recourse to a separate proceeding for revocation of probate, and this, in our opinion, he ought not to be compelled to do. It has also been suggested that the appellants may not be affected one way or the other by the grant or revocation of the probate, and reference has been made in this connection to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Debendra Nath Dutt v. Administrator-General of Bengal 35 I.A. 109 : 12 C.W.N. 802 (P.C.) : 18 M.L.J. 367 : 10 Bom. L.R. 648 : 8 C.L.J. 94 : 35 C. 955.
Monmohini Guha vs Banga Chandra Das on 29 June, 1903
Now it has been ruled in the case of Monmohini v. Banga 31 C. 357, that, unless a Will is proved in some form, no grant of probate can be made merely on consent of parties. To put the matter in another way, an agreement or compromise as regards the genuineness and due execution of a Will, if its effect is to exclude evidence in proof of the Will, is not lawful within the meaning of this Rule, and no probate can be granted merely because the caveator consents to the grant; such an agreement is against public policy, for its object is to exclude enquiry into the genuineness of the Will which it is the duty of the Probate Court to make. In other words, as the grant of probate operates as a judgment in rem, the Court must be satisfied that the Will has been duly attested and executed before the grant is made.
Section 83 in The Probate and Administration Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 41 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gopal Dass Agrawallah vs Budree Dass Sureka And Anr. on 22 March, 1906
The view indicated there as to the position of a transferee from an executor, whose probate is subsequently revoked, is, it may be observed, different from that adopted in the cases of Gopal Das v. Budree Das 33 C. 657 : 10 C.W.N. 662, Debendra Nath v. Banku Behary 33 C. 713 : 3 C.L.J. 422 (F.B.)