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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Noor Mohammad and Anr.
Versus
Mohamad Kareem and Anr.
Decided On : 20.01.1938

The Court emphasized the obligation to conduct a full enquiry in case of contention, as per Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act.

Headnote:

Section 295 - Indian Succession Act - Court's obligation to make a full enquiry in case of contention

Fact of the Case:

The learned District Judge's order was not supported as the Court refused to make a full enquiry, contrary to Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Judge's order, and directed the case to be restored and dealt with according to law.

Issues: Refusal of the Court to make a full enquiry, contention in the case, and the summary fashion of decision-making by the District Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the obligation to conduct a full enquiry in case of contention, as per Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, and rejected the summary fashion of decision-making.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the District Judge's order was set aside, and the case was directed to be restored and dealt with according to law.

JUDGMENT

1. The order of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. It is not permissible for the Court to refuse to make a full enquiry. Under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, where there is contention the proceedings must take the form of a regular suit according to the Civil Procedure Code. There was certainly contention in this case and the learned District Judge could not proceed to decide the matter in a summary fashion, leaving his decision subject to modification in a suit to be filed afterwards.

2. We allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned District Judge. The case must be restored to file and dealt with according to law after directing the appellants and the second respondent to file duly stamped caveats. Costs of this appeal to abide and follow the result.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top