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 Protects Deities' Property: Appellant's Succession Claim Dismissed as 'Kritrim Putra'; Interim Injunction Issued.</h1> <h3>Kusheshwar Purbey Versus Shri Shri 108 Ram Janaki Jee and Ors.</h3> The HC decreed the probate case in favor of the deities, granting letters of administration over the properties involved in the Will, and dismissed the ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment include the grant of letters of administration over a suit property, transfer of lands belonging to deities, validity of a Will, inheritance claims, probate case, succession case, interim injunction, and protection of property during legal proceedings.Grant of Letters of Administration: The plaintiff-respondent filed an injunction application to restrain the appellant from alienating or transferring lands belonging to deities installed in a temple. The appellant contested the case claiming inheritance as a 'Kritrim Putra' of the deceased landowner. The Court decreed the probate case in favor of the deities and dismissed the succession case of the appellant, granting letters of administration over the properties involved in the Will.Validity of Will and Inheritance Claims: The appellant's claim of being adopted as a 'Kritrim Putra' was disbelieved by the Court, leading to the dismissal of his succession case. The Court found that prior to the execution of the Will, some properties were dedicated to deities by Samarpannama. The Court emphasized that in a probate case, only the genuineness of a Will is adjudicated, not the title concerning the property.Interim Injunction and Protection of Property: The Court cited legal precedents to establish that in cases of declaration of title, the Court has the power to grant interim injunctions under Order 39, Rule 1, or Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court held that it has inherent jurisdiction to protect the rights of parties pending legal proceedings. In this case, the Court restrained the appellant from alienating or damaging the suit property during the appeal process to safeguard the interests of the deities.Significant Legal Precedents: The judgment referenced decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts to support the grant of interim injunctions in probate cases for the protection of property subject to legal proceedings. The Court highlighted the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to ensure justice and prevent dissipation of property pending final adjudication.Conclusion: Ultimately, the Court allowed the injunction application and granted the requested relief in favor of the deities, restraining the appellant from alienating or damaging the suit property until the appeal's disposal. The judgment emphasized the importance of preserving the subject matter of litigation to prevent adverse consequences and ensure a just resolution of the legal dispute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
