SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(Bom) 36

CHAGLA, GAJENDRAGADKAR
Harilal Nemchand Gosalia – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


Advocates:
R.J. Kolah - for Petitioner. M.P. Amin, Advocate-General - for Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

Judgement

CHAGLA, C.J. :- This is a reference under S. 5, Court-fees Act, 1870, and the very narrow question that calls for our determination is the meaning to be given to the expression appearing in Sch. III, Court-fees Act in Annexure-B of that schedule, "amount of debts due and owing from the deceased, payable by law out of the estate." Now, under S. 19-1, Court-fees Act,

"no order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall he made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the third schedule."

and the third schedule seta out the form and in that form in Annexure-A bas to be set out the value of the moveable and immoveable properties of the deceased and in Annexure-B a schedule of debts has got to be set out and the first item in the schedule of debts is amount of debts due and owing from the deceased, payable by law out of the estate. The petitioner in this case contended before the Prothonotary that he was entitled to include in these debts two sums of Rs. 72,695 and Rs. 41,880 which were owed by the deceased to the sisters of his widow. Now, admitted



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top