TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court reinstates second probate application, overturning dismissal & emphasizing legal entitlement</h1> <h3>Gnanamuthu Upadesi and Ors. Versus. Vana Koipillai Nadan</h3> The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal of the second probate application and ordering its reinstatement for proper consideration, with ... - Issues:1. Dismissal of the second application for probate and the subsequent appeal.2. Dismissal of the application to set aside the order and restore the original probate application.Issue 1: The judgment addresses the dismissal of the second application for probate and the subsequent appeal. The appellant, who claimed to be the executor of the deceased's will, had his initial probate application dismissed due to lack of instructions from his vakil. Subsequently, a second application for probate was made, which was also dismissed by the Judge. The appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the Judge erred in not treating the second application as a fresh one. The judgment cited precedents such as Janaki v. Kesavalu and Bai Manekbai v. Manekji Kavasji to support the argument that applications for probate are exempt from the Limitation Act. The Court agreed with the appellant, setting aside the Judge's order and directing the probate application to be reinstated for proper consideration, with costs to be borne by the respondent.Issue 2: The judgment also deals with the dismissal of the application to set aside the previous order and restore the original probate application. The appellant sought to overturn the order of dismissal on the grounds that it was barred by limitations. The Judge dismissed this application, citing precedents and the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act. However, the Court disagreed with the Judge's reasoning, stating that the appellant was legally entitled to make a second application for probate without restrictions. The Court found the Judge's order to be erroneous and set it aside, emphasizing that applications for probate are exempt from the limitations imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure. As both appeals were heard together with the same legal representatives, no costs were awarded for the second appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
