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

1987 Supreme(Ori) 182

HARI LAL AGRAWAL
SURENDRA CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
LAXMINARAYAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.KAR, S.Mishra

H. L. AGRAWAL, CJ.

( 1 ) THIS application by defendants 12 to 14 is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, refusing their application for transposing them as plaintiffs in place of the original plaintiff on her death in a suit for partition.

( 2 ) THE application was made by the petitioners on the ground that the plaintiff had executed a wilt in their favour bequeathing her share in the suit property to them. The application was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on the sole ground that the will had not been probated by the court under S. 211 of the Succession Act (for short 'the Act' ).

( 3 ) I am informed that in the meantime the will has been probated in favour of the petitioners for which Mr. Kar appearing for them wanted time to produce the order. Since the statement is coming from the Bar, I would prefer to accept the same.

( 4 ) APART from the above fact, S. 211 of the Act makes a special provision. According to this provision, the executor or administrator, as the case may be, of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes, and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. According to the scheme of the a


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