Advanced Search Results

Multivahuji Vs. Kalindivahuji and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 222, 213, 227, 268, 273, 276, 280, 281, 283, 284, 288, 294, 295, 298 and 307; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9, 10, 115 and 151 - Order 19, Rule 2; Evidence Act - Sections 4, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44

Reported in : AIR1994Guj42

has acted absolutely within its jurisdiction and no jurisdictional error is pointed out to this Court.12. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 broadly divides succession into intestate and testamentary succession. The provisions of the Act dealing with testamentary succession are … parties but also the entire world. The award deprives the parties of statutory right of appeal provided under Section 298. Thus the necessary conclusion is that the probate court alone has exclusive jurisdiction and the civil court on

Chandra Kishore Dikshit Son of Sri Kewal Krishna Dikshit Alias Babu Ra ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : FamilyLimitation

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 2, 47, 57, 276, 278, 278(1) and 298; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 2 - Schedule - Article 137; Limitation Rules - Rules 7 and 39; Limitation Act - Schedule - Article 181

Reported in : AIR2006All86

made in the suit. The Court also declines to exercise its discretion under Section 298 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 to grant the relief.28. The Suit is dismissed. The defendant shall be entitled to the cost of the

Sudarshan Shaw Vs. Subhas Shaw

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 276, 293, 298, 370 and 372; ;Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 108; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 198

Reported in : 2005(3)CHN456

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of an applicant under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against Order No. 22 dated 4th November, 2003 passed … death before grant of probate and fourteen clear days, for grant of letters of administration as provided in Section 298 of the Act.14. Apart from those reasons, we have at least not found out any other cause for

Punjab Province Vs. Daulat Singh

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR443

an attempt to reopen or set aside transactions already completed, or to vacate titles already acquired. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act X of 1938, is rendered invalid by Section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab

Zee Telefilms Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 7, 12, 13(1), 13(2), 14, 17, 19, 19(1), 19(6), 21, 21A, 26, 32, 73, 77, 145(3), 226 and 298; Human Rights Act, 1998 - Sections 8; Companies Act; Succession Act 1925 - Sections 118; International Airport Authority Act, 1971; International Cricket Council Rules - Rules 8, 9, 10, 12, 32, 32A, 33, 34, 35 and 38; Societies Registration Act 1860; Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975; Trade Practices Act, 1974; Wheat Marketing Act, 1989

Reported in : AIR2005SC2677; (2005)4CompLJ283(SC); JT2005(2)SC8; (2005)4SCC649; [2005] 1 SCR 913; MANU/SC/0074/2005

in U.K. in relation to a provision which was in pari materia with Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, this Court observed:'...The constitutionality of a provision, it is trite, will have to be judged keeping in view … Corporations and the Societies' created by the State for carrying on its trading activities in terms of Article 298 of the Constitution where for the capital, infrastructure, initial investment and financial aid etc. are provided by the

Mahomed Jusab Abdulla Vs. Fatmabai Jusab Abdulla

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Reported in : AIR1948Bom53; (1947)49BOMLR505

a contrary conclusion if that presumption is displaced by clear and cogent language to the contrary. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … expresses the opinion that a joint tenancy can be created validly under Mahomedan law-see Hamilton's Hedaya, Vol. III, 298. The way the matter is argued by Hedaya is very interesting. The illustration taken is that of a

Arjan Dev Mittra Vs. Sh. Sada Nand and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 276

Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)129; AIR2000Delhi236; 84(2000)DLT315; 2000(53)DRJ715

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Sada Nand Mittra and Laxmi Devi filed a petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of probate to them of a registered Will dated 2nd May, 1977 executed by their … the Trail Court. In support of his contention he has cited Ram Saran Dat v. Emperor 1925 Lah 298. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that registration itself will not be a conclusive proof

S.P. Kaveri Achi Vs. C.T. Ramasamy

Court : Chennai

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 222, 263, 265, 268, 276, 295 and 298; Limitation Act - Sections 5; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 141 - Order 9, Rules 9 and 13

Reported in : AIR2008Mad235

The relevant facts of the case are that a petition Under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act read with Order XXV Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court was filed … 2008 in T.O.S. No. 51 of 2002.2. The relevant facts of the case are that a petition Under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act read with Order XXV Rule 4 of the Original Side … order in a probate proceeding considering the provisions of Sections 265 and 298 of the Act and Section 141 of the Code.16. In view of

Sm. Annapurna Kumar Vs. Subodh Chandra Kumar

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Property

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 263, 283 and 298

Reported in : AIR1970Cal433

a matter of fact, the learned District Judge should have taken action under Section 298 of the Indian Succession Act, and for the above reasons, refused to grant any Letters of Administration.4. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set

Mitthulal and ors. Vs. Badri Prasad and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 22, Rules 3, 3(2) and 5

Reported in : AIR1981MP1

the Civil Procedure Code. He in that behalf took into account Sections 278 and 295 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. Thus according to him if the propounder omits to disclose the near relations or heirs of the testator … Jugal Kishore, AIR 1938 Cal 639; Ramcharan v. Hiranand, AIR 1945 Lah 298 (FB); Brij Jivan Lal v. Shiam Lal, AIR 1950 All 57; Aiyap-pan … Nag 39. If that be so, an appeal lies and the present revision may not be tenable under Section 115 of the Code. But he also observed that the second part of the order regarding abatement is