Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.62 seconds)Section 213 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Ram Chand Ganesh Dass vs Sardara Singh And Anr. on 17 November, 1961
We agree with the view taken by Falshaw, J., in Ram Chand case [Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh, 1961 SCC OnLine P&H 233 : AIR 1962 P&H 382 : PLR (1962) 64 P&H 265] .
Behari Lal Ram Charan vs Karam Chand Sahni And Ors. on 15 September, 1966
7. The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni [Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni, 1966 SCC OnLine P&H 226 : AIR 1968 P&H 108] : (SCC OnLine P&H)
?3. From a bare perusal of these two sections it is apparent that the objection of Defendant 1 on the preliminary issue raised by him in the trial court was without any substance. Clause (a) of Section 57 read with sub-section (2) of Section 213, it would appear, applies to those cases where the property and parties are situate in the territories of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, while clause (b) applies to those cases where the parties are not residing in those territories but the property involved is situate within those territories. Clause (c) of Section 57, however, is not relevant for the present purposes. Therefore, where both the person and property of any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, are outside the territories mentioned above, the rigour of Section 213, sub-section (1), is not attracted.
The Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 2002
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Clarence Pais & Ors vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2001
15. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the judgement / order dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Ghaziabad cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Sohan Singh (Died) Through Lr Amardeep ... vs Bhag Singh And Ors on 3 December, 2021
It appears that the case of Sohan Singh v. Bhag Singh [Sohan Singh v. Bhag Singh, 1934 SCC OnLine Lah 183 : AIR 1934 Lah 599] , referred to above, was not brought to his notice.?
Kesar Singh Sant Singh And Ors. vs Smt. Tej Kaur on 5 April, 1961
6. There remains to be considered the decision [Kesar Singh v. Tej Kaur, 1961 SCC OnLine P&H 71 : PLR (1961) 63 P&H 473] of Shamsher Bahadur, J., in the case mentioned above, which is apparently based on the decision of a Full Bench in Ganshamdoss Narayandoss v. Gulab Bi Bai [Ganshamdoss Narayandoss v. Gulab Bi Bai, 1927 SCC OnLine Mad 158 : ILR (1927) 50 Mad 927] . I find, however, on perusing this judgment that what has been held is that a defendant resisting a claim made by the plaintiff as heir-at-law cannot rely in defence on a will executed in his favour at Madras in respect of property situate in Madras, when the will is not probated and no letters of administration with the will annexed have been granted. This is clearly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 213 and 57(a) of the Act, and the only point on which the matter was referred to the Full Bench was whether a will could be set up in defence in a suit without probate.