<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (11) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171966</link>
    <description>Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 empowers the testamentary court to issue directions only for the estate and its administration after probate or letters of administration, so it cannot be used to enforce a family arrangement or development agreement that conflicts with the Will. Because probate is a judgment in rem, the Executor must administer the estate according to the Will, and any inconsistent collateral agreement must be pursued in independent proceedings. The Court also held that the earlier High Court order on maintainability did not finally decide the substantive issue and therefore did not operate as res judicata. The impugned judgment was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171966</link>
      <description>Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 empowers the testamentary court to issue directions only for the estate and its administration after probate or letters of administration, so it cannot be used to enforce a family arrangement or development agreement that conflicts with the Will. Because probate is a judgment in rem, the Executor must administer the estate according to the Will, and any inconsistent collateral agreement must be pursued in independent proceedings. The Court also held that the earlier High Court order on maintainability did not finally decide the substantive issue and therefore did not operate as res judicata. The impugned judgment was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>