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

2008 Supreme(Del) 901

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Ravi Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Khanna – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Sinha, Advocates.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29th August 2006 passed by the probate court.

2. The petitioner prayed for staying of the proceedings before the Court below by making an application under Section 10 of CPC on the ground that a suit for partition and rendition of account was pending between the same parties before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Amritsar and in that suit one of the issues was regarding execution of the same Will which was the subject matter of the probate petition before the Court below. The probate Court, however, dismissed the application observing inter alia that the proceedings under the Succession Act were altogether different than the proceedings before the Civil Court. The Probate Court does not function as a Civil Court and the probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide about the genuineness of the Will. 2. Mere pendency of a suit for partition puts no bar for grant of probate or letter of administration under the Provisions of the Succession Act. It is settled law that probate court has jurisdiction to determine about the genuineness of the Wi



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