JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR v. Rajendra Kuiuar Gupta alias Munna
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
the petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of SBjLpf Constitution BencH of the HO"'I3I®^Pe?<Court B''_1^>e_ BRKBifl fi. XI-HG—78 TST •^WM^, ©tily'ifi, fsidiy^< 311^1'T^T (' p) sn^r w Wi4i ^TSTT-SH^I s»i*ii<=h Vf?3 S^l ._ Q .__ <¥>I^<?Ttft-T'^r^ ^ T^^ <f^T^K ^SifiiH 3)1^1 matter af Bhau ftam V. Saij Nath^ Singh and others reporTed in <4IR 1962 Supreme Court 1476 impugr|ed order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this connection, if we l<^ok into the provisions of Sections 57-(a) ond 213 of The Indian Succejssion AcT, 1925, conjoint reading of bo1+) the Sections makes it clear fhait -the provision oyplies to all Wills made within the territorit ^s of fiovernment of Bengal or Lieutenant ©overnor of Benga! [»r within the local limits of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdictioi} of the Hi9h Courts of judicature at Madras ond Bombay. If aWil| is executed by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina within such territ^ries or with respect to property situated in those territories it is ijiecessary •t'o obtain the probate emd Civi!
Court has no jurisdiction Tij) adjudicate upon the factum ond validity cf the Wil!. Fur-riier read'ii^g of Sub-section (2) of Section 213 makes it clear that the section ap(>ties with respect to Wills which are of the ctass spscified in clause (b 1 of section 57. Therefore, the bar created by sub-section (1) of sec-^on 213 that no right os executor or legatee can be established in anyjCourt of Justice, unless a court of competent jurisdiction in India ha^ gran'ted probate of the Will under which The right is claimed, or hcfs granted letters of administration with the Will or witii a copy of an authenticated copy of the Wilt anrjexed (^>plies only to those cajtegories of persons as mentioned in ;^y^--::Ei"'%" •saF XI-HC—78 ?^ ^rpTRrq, '^TRTTC, 1^ira3< 35RSr^i! wn»Ti^i 31^?F'q^i'(' p) WifeP^t 'ciitRff i[ •fe<^ ifsi^ ciause (a) and properties mention^d in clcuse (b) of section 57 of ths Act.
Operative part
Therefore, the succession bertifica-te on the basis of •t+ie Will has been sought r%gardin9 the pr^operty situated at Bilaspur, ss such in view of ciause (a) of 5ection 5f and sub-section (2) of SecTion 213 of the Indian Succession Act, i1^ is necessary for respondent No.l herein to obtain the probate beforje ciaiming right based on the Will. Counsel for The petitioner jFurther submitt-ed that tearned Civil Judge imposed cost of fts.3,000/ which is very exorbitont and same has been imposed without ony just|fication. Having heard leamed eoun^ el for the petitioner, request made by iearned counsel -riie p^titioner appears to be just and reasonable, therefore, looking to the circumstances, cost is reduced from Rs.3,000/- to fts.500/-. With the above observation the petition is dismissed. ^•dl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s. 213.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 23 Dec 2004.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.