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>Probate petition for injunction against deceased's assets rejected due to insufficient fraud evidence under Order VI Rule 4 CPC</h1> <h3>In RE: SHRI OM PRAKASH MANIYAR (DECEASED)</h3> The Calcutta HC rejected a petition seeking ad interim injunction against assets of a deceased person in probate proceedings. Despite challenges to ... Seeking ad interim order of injunction in respect of the assets and properties of the deceased - passing of temporary injunction order against a non-party to a probate proceeding - absence of evidence of any attesting witness - HELD THAT:- Despite a challenge having been thrown to the authenticity of the signature of the petitioner in certain documents annexed to the application, the necessary particulars of fraud and/or forgery, ascontemplated in Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have not been established at this stage to hold ex facie that fraud was perpetrated by the respondent. It is true that the probate court is not debarred absolutely from adjudicating prima facie on the right, title and interest of the contesting parties for the limited purpose of deciding an application for appointment of administrator pendentelite and/or passing orders of injunction in aid of the final grant in the probate proceeding. However, in the instant case, there is no scope of reconsidering the previous order of a co-ordinate Bench, as modified by the appellate court, at the ad interim stage itself before affidavits are exchanged and the injunction application / application for administrator pendentelite is heard finally on merits, since no change of circumstance in the interregnum has been established by the petitione In such view of the matter, the petitioner’s prayer for further reliefs in terms of the prayers other than relief of the injunction application has to be turned down at this stage. The respondents shall file their affidavit(s)-in-opposition to the injunction application - Reply/replies, if any, thereto shall be filed by January 14, 2022 - The matter shall next be enlisted for final hearing. Issues:1. Request for ad interim injunction in probate matter regarding deceased's assets.2. Allegation of altering shareholding in trust by one of the sons.3. Legal validity of the Will dated August 3, 2020.4. Jurisdiction of probate court over companies' matters.5. Challenge to previous court orders and prayer for further reliefs.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, as the executrix of the deceased's Will, sought an ad interim injunction concerning the deceased's assets, alleging that one son, a legatee under the Will, was changing the trust's shareholding to favor himself, potentially affecting the other legatee's entitlement. The petitioner relied on precedents emphasizing the probate court's authority to issue temporary orders to protect testamentary disposition properties.2. The respondent argued against the Will's evidentiary value due to lack of verification by attesting witnesses. Additionally, the respondent contended that a trust could not be adjudicated in probate court and questioned the testamentary court's authority over the companies' shareholdings, citing legal provisions and judgments for support.3. The court considered the previous orders granting relief to the petitioner and subsequent modifications by the appellate court. It noted the lack of changed circumstances to warrant further alterations to the orders at the ad interim stage. The court also examined the alleged alterations in shareholding, finding insufficient evidence of fraud or forgery to support the petitioner's claims.4. The court clarified that while the probate court could decide on parties' rights for certain purposes, the petitioner's request for additional relief beyond the granted injunction was denied, pending further hearings. The court set deadlines for filing affidavits and scheduled a final hearing for the matter.5. The court's observations were deemed tentative for the purpose of considering the petitioner's ad interim requests, with parties allowed to present arguments comprehensively during the final hearing. The respondents were directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition by a specified date, with subsequent replies due before the scheduled final hearing.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the court's considerations and decisions regarding the probate matter and related disputes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
