Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.26 seconds)Dr.R.A.Venkatesan vs D.Jenbagalakshmi on 14 September, 2011
In Dr.R.A.Venkatesan v. D.Jenbagalakshmi [2012 [2] CTC 278], a Division Bench of this Court held as under:-
Promode Kumar Roy vs Sephalika Dutta on 13 August, 1956
In Promode Kumar Roy v. Sephalika Dutta [AIR 1957 Cal 631], a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a person who has acquired an interest in the testator's estate, though after his death, by reason of the mortgage transfer by the testator's son and who is undoubtedly also a creditor of the testator's said son, whom the alleged Will purports to disinherit has plainly locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant, particularly when his allegation is that the grant was obtained in fraud of the creditors.
Sm. Annapurna Kumar vs Subodh Chandra Kumar on 28 July, 1969
In Annapurna Kumar v. Subodh Chandra Kumar [AIR 1970 Cal. 433], it was held that any interest, however, slight, and even a bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose a testamentary disposition.
Shanti Devi Agarwalla vs Kusum Kumari Sarkar And Anr. on 16 September, 1971
In Shanti Devi Agarwalla v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar [AIR 1972 Orissa 178], a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court held that even bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to oppose testamentary instrument. In the said case, part of the property was purchased from one of the Legatees relying on second Will. That purchaser would be affected if probate is granted through first Will. The learned single Judge has held that vendor legatee is entitled to enter caveat in respect of first Will, the purchaser having stepped into the shoes of the vendor is also entitled to enter caveat.
Sadananda Pyne vs Harinam Sha And Anr. on 16 September, 1949
In Sadananda Pyme v. Harinam Sha [AIR 1950 Cal. 179], a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a person holding an interest in the property in the event of intestacy is one, who will have locus standi to file an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 to cancel the Order probating the Will.
Gita Alias Gita Ravi vs Mary Jenet James Alias M.J. James And ... on 17 November, 1994
In Gita @ Gita Ravi v. Mary Jenet James @ James [1995 (1) MLJ 467 : 1995 (2) LW 831], it was held that Explanation (a) to (e) in Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not exhaustive and the Court is not fettered by the explanation while deciding whether there is just cause for revocation of a grant. It is held that the explanation would only mean that in cases, where one of the circumstances set out in clauses (a) to (e) is present, a legal fiction comes into existence to the effect that in such cases, there is just cause for revocation. If there are circumstances, which do not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (e), but which warrant or necessitate the revocation of the grant, the Court is entitled to revoke the grant or annul the same even though there is no legal fiction.
S. Bhaskaran And S. Ganga Devi vs R. Loganathan on 18 August, 2007
In S.Bhaskaran and another v. R.Loganathan [2007 (6) MLJ 290], the Appellant claimed to have purchased the property through Ranganayaki, who is a Class I heir of Purushothaman. Observing that any interest howsoever slight, is sufficient to entitle to oppose the grant, the Division Bench held as under:-
Section 218 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Sm. Sima Rani Mohanti vs Puspa Rani Pal on 13 May, 1977
In Sima Rani Mohanti v. Puspa Rani Pal [AIR 1978 Cal. 140], the Division Bench reiterated the proposition laid down in Annapurna Kumar [AIR 1970 Cal. 433].
1