T.RAMAPRASADA RAO, S.RATNAVEL PANDIAN
G. Shanmugham Chetty and another – Appellant
Versus
Chinnammal – Respondent
2. She was admittedly a person to whom notice was ordered before the grant was made. But according to the respondent such a notice which was served on her on 12th January, 1974 was not accompanied by the copy of the petition filed for the grant and that no publication was made about the date of hearing of the testamentary proceedings and that she sought for inspection of the records as per order of the Master of this Court dated 19th March, 1974 and it was only thereafter she entered caveat. But as by then the letters of administration was ordered on 14th February, 1974, the respondent’s allegation is that the grant was obtained on; false and fraudulent misrepresentation. She concedes that she has questioned the legality of the will in ea
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.