Satish Kumar Jain vs State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Satish Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and petition. (Para 1)
2. arguments against substitution of legal heirs in probate. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. effect of section 227 on executor's acts. (Para 7)
4. legal standing of applicants as non-executors. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
5. nature of executor's role and probate proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. clarification of deceased petitioner's status. (Para 16 , 17)
7. issues of forgery and authority of the executorship. (Para 18 , 19)
8. procedural issues in framing of the case. (Para 20 , 21)
9. final order allowing impleadment of heirs. (Para 22 , 24)
10. next steps in the proceedings. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)

I.A. 10299/2019(Application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment of legal representatives of petitioner)

1. The present petition has been filed for grant of letter of administration/probate in respect of Will dated 29th December, 1980 executed and left by late. Shri Daya Chand Jain. The petitioner is survived by his wife, Smt. Anila Jain and two sons-Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Ankur Jain, who have moved this application to be impleaded as the petitioners in place of deceased Petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTNEENA BANSAL KRISHNASatish Kumar Jain – AppellantVersusState – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Satish Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent