TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaint in a suit seeking administration, accounts and allotment of legacy was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as barred by law and premature.
Analysis: The reliefs claimed in the plaint were found to depend on completion of administration under the Will. The executors had not completed the administration, and the plaintiff, being a legatee named as executor, had not shown the statutory intention required to take the legacy. The Court treated the plaint as disclosing no present enforceable cause of action for the relief sought. It held that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 furnishes a complete mechanism, including remedies relating to administration, assent, and revocation of grant, and that the civil suit was therefore hit by the principle of demurrer and by the bar flowing from the statutory scheme. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit was regarded as vexatious and not maintainable at that stage.
Conclusion: The plaint was rightly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the suit was not maintainable in its present form.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relief claimed is contingent on completion of testamentary administration and the governing succession statute provides specific remedies, a civil suit seeking legacy-related relief before such administration is complete discloses no present cause of action and may be rejected as barred in principle under Order 7 Rule 11.
TaxTMI 
