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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 203

DEVADOSS
Jammi Hanumantha Rao – Appellant
Versus
Aratla Latchamma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The appellant applied for the probate of the will of one Narasamma, dated 4th June, 1920. The grant of probate was opposed by the respondent who is the widow of the brother of Narasammas husband, and the District Judge held that it was not proved that Narasamrna executed the will and dismissed the application.

2. Mr. Jagannadha Doss for the appellant raises the contention that the respondent was not entitled to oppose the grant of probate as she had no interest in the estate of the deceased so as to be entitled to. enter caveat under Section 69 of the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881). As there is a conflict of authority on this point and as the respondent has not appeared to oppose the appeal, we asked Mr. Anantha Aiyar to appear as amicus curiae, and we are thankful to him for bringing to our notice the cases opposed to the contention of the appellant. Under Section 69 "In all cases it shall be lawful for the District fudge, if he thinks fit, to issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration." What is the nat


















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