Advanced Search Results

Chittaranjan Narottamdas Negandhi Vs. Hemkala Alias Meenakshi Mansingh ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

evidence on record, it is necessary to note the provisions of Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: "59. Person capable of making Wills.- Every person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of … two elements. Before I turn to the evidence on record, it is necessary to note the provisions of Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: "59. Person capable of making Wills.- Every person of … Calcutta High Court in A.E.G. Dederian v A.Y. Carapiet, AIR 1961 Cal 359, paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, is now firmly established. Carapiet was also

Madhuri Pukharaj Baldota Vs. Omkarlal Daulatram Banwat and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

SCC 369; Srideviand Ors. v Jayaraja Shetty, (2005) 2 SCC 784; PentakotaSatyanarayana, supra). 20. Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 sets out the requirements for the valid execution of a will. A testator must sign it, or affix … Dileep Nevatia and Ors., 2015 (1) Bom CR 361, considering A.E.G. Carapiet v A.Y. Derderian, AIR 1961 Cal 359). But that is not the case here. There is no affirmative case by the Defendant to put to

Susila Ammal Vs. Indiraniammal

Court : Chennai

Subject : Family

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 -- Sections 87, 88, 97, 113, 114 and 118; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- Sections 15

Reported in : 2000(4)CTC78

will were incongrous and offended the rule against perpetuity as set out in Section- 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.6. Per contra, Mrs.Prabha Sridevan submitted that the concept of rule against perpetuity could not be brought in or … portion not objectionable may be given effect to.16. In Tagore v. Tagore, 1874 (1) IA 307 18 WR 359 the devise was to A for life, remainder to his eldest son for life, then to the eldest

Kissondas Premchand Vs. Jivatlal Pratapshi and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Commercial

Reported in : AIR1936Bom423; (1936)38BOMLR864

6 Bom. L.R. 853, doubted.;Mathuradas v. Raimal (1935) 37 Bom. L.R. 642, commented on.;Section 323 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, merely lays down a rule of procedure that must be followed by an executor or administrator. It is … he may compel the legatees to refund : see Doe v. Guy (1802) 3 East 120, 123; (Cf. Section 359, Indian Succession Act). A creditor's primary remedy lies against the executor and not the legatee. The Court of

Pushpa Devi Vs. Motl Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Family

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj322

and also about form and absence of essential ingredients in the application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It also seeks to raise issues relating to non-joinder of necessary parties in the application like daughter of … to.' (43). Relying on the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in (1872) 18 Suth WR 359 - Jotendro Mohun Tagore v. Ganendra Mohun Tagore to the effect that 'Will''means a continuous act of gift

Kirit Navnitlal Damania and Another Vs. Anuradha Anil Bhagwat and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Education

parts, one relating to the actual physical act of execution as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the other, as a separate or distinct issue, relating to testator's dispositive capacity based on the provisions … by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.E.G. Dederian v A.Y. Carpiet (AIR 1961 Cal 359, paragraphs 8,9 and 10). That was also a testamentary case. In that case, a very similar situation arose

T. Subramania Nadar Vs. T. Varadharajan and T. Thirumoorthy

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100

Reported in : AIR2003Mad364; (2003)2MLJ224

therefore fails.13. Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act is almost identical with Section 113 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The difference between the two sections is that the former relates to transfer of inter vivos, while the … appellant is not permissible in law and he relies on the case of Tagore v. Tagore, 18 WR 359. It is quite true that no interest could be created in favour of an unborn person but when

G.F.F. Foulkes and ors. Vs. A.S. Suppan Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 8 - Order 20, Rule 13 and 13(2); Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 307, 307(1), 323 and 360; Trusts Act, 1882 - Sections 68 and 93

Reported in : AIR1951Mad296; (1950)2MLJ220

rateably, any rights enforceable against the creditors who have been paid in full or in excess Section 323, Succession Act, 1925, replaced Section 282, Succesaion Act, 1865, and Section 104, Probate and Administration Act, 1881. Section 282, Succession Act, … subject-matter of the sales, (viii) RS. 5691-9-6 due to defendant 5, under two decrees in O. Section No. 359 of 1946 and O. Section No. 221 of 1941 respectively on the file of the District Munsifs Court,

T.N. Krishna Pillai S/O Nallaperumal, Vs. K. Nallaperumal S/O T.N. Kri ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 84, 87, 88, 97, 113, 114 and 138

Reported in : (2002)3MLJ667

ER 308 : 54 TLR 903. 5. This principle is also contained in Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which, together with its illustrations, provides as under: 'The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails:- Where two clauses … VS . BALRAJ KUAR ( .' 19. In TAGORE VS. TAGORE 1874 (1) IA 307 : 18 WR 359 (PC) the devise was to A for life, remainder to his eldest son for life, then to the

illyas and ors. Vs. Badshah Alias Kamla

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 63; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 68; Muslim Law; Mohammadan Law

Reported in : AIR1990MP334

Khan, Nathuram and Panchamlal that the will was executed by Munnilal son of Nasiban.5. Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 provides for execution of a will. According to this provision, (i) the testator shall sign or shall affix … vacant possession of the suit house to the respondent.2. The dispute between the parties is about houses Nos. 359 to 374 situate at Itwari Tori, Sagar. Appellant Abdul Gafoor claimed ownership of the said house on the