Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1966 (3) TMI 91 - HC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Jurisdiction, shebaitship and proof of execution upheld in contentious probate despite procedural irregularity. A Civil Judge's competence to grant letters of administration in a contentious testamentary matter was preserved by a continuing High Court notification ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Jurisdiction, shebaitship and proof of execution upheld in contentious probate despite procedural irregularity.

                              A Civil Judge's competence to grant letters of administration in a contentious testamentary matter was preserved by a continuing High Court notification that vested Civil Judges, Senior Division, with District Judge powers, so the jurisdiction objection failed. Shebaitship of a Hindu temple was treated as property because it carried a beneficial proprietary interest in the management and usufruct of the endowment, so an instrument disposing of shebaitship fell within the definition of a will. Due execution was also proved by the attesting witness and scribe, and the use of affidavits in examination-in-chief did not vitiate the proceeding where the parties assented and cross-examination was held.




                              Issues: (i) Whether the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and grant letters of administration in a contentious testamentary matter; (ii) whether shebaitship of a Hindu temple constitutes property capable of testamentary disposition and therefore falls within the definition of a will; (iii) whether due execution of the will was proved and whether the use of affidavits in examination-in-chief vitiated the proceedings.

                              Issue (i): Whether the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and grant letters of administration in a contentious testamentary matter.

                              Analysis: Under the Indian Succession Act, a delegate Civil Judge could act only in non-contentious cases, and a contentious objection would ordinarily require return of the application. However, the relevant High Court notification issued under the Saurashtra District and Subordinate Civil Courts Ordinance, 1948, and continued in force through the Bombay Civil Courts legislation, empowered Civil Judges, Senior Division, to exercise the powers of a District Judge. That notification was in force when the application was made, so the Civil Judge retained competence despite the contest.

                              Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed, and the grant of letters of administration was valid.

                              Issue (ii): Whether shebaitship of a Hindu temple constitutes property capable of testamentary disposition and therefore falls within the definition of a will.

                              Analysis: A will must operate upon property. The instrument did not dispose of the temple or the land, which had been dedicated to the deity, but only of the deceased's shebaitship, namely the right to manage the temple, worship the deity, and take the income of the endowed property. Shebaitship is not a bare office; it carries a beneficial or proprietary interest because it includes the right to enjoy the usufruct of the endowment. That proprietary element makes it property capable of being disposed of by will.

                              Conclusion: Shebaitship was property, and the instrument answered the statutory definition of a will.

                              Issue (iii): Whether due execution of the will was proved and whether the use of affidavits in examination-in-chief vitiated the proceedings.

                              Analysis: The attesting witness and the scribe supported execution, and their evidence established signing by the testator in the presence of attesting witnesses while he was in a sound disposing state of mind. Although contentious probate proceedings should follow the procedure of a regular suit and oral evidence ordinarily must be taken viva voce, the parties in this case were taken to have assented to the affidavits being treated as evidence because no objection was raised and cross-examination was conducted. The irregular procedure therefore did not vitiate the trial.

                              Conclusion: Due execution was proved, and the procedural objection failed.

                              Final Conclusion: The testamentary grant was upheld, and the appeal failed.

                              Ratio Decidendi: In a contentious probate matter, a special statutory notification may preserve a Civil Judge's jurisdiction, shebaitship carrying a beneficial interest is property capable of testamentary disposition, and an irregular use of affidavits will not vitiate the proceeding where the parties have assented to that mode of proof.


                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found