<?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>1962 (2) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176033</link>
    <description>Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act bars a party from establishing a right as legatee in court unless probate or letters of administration has been granted for the will under which the right is claimed. The Court held that this bar also prevents reliance on an earlier unprobated will in the chain of title to prove ownership, even indirectly through a later testamentary disposition. It further clarified that probate proceedings determine due execution of the will, not title to property, so dismissal of an earlier letters-of-administration application did not create res judicata on ownership. Alleged estoppel also failed because no representation and reliance were shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:40:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (2) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176033</link>
      <description>Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act bars a party from establishing a right as legatee in court unless probate or letters of administration has been granted for the will under which the right is claimed. The Court held that this bar also prevents reliance on an earlier unprobated will in the chain of title to prove ownership, even indirectly through a later testamentary disposition. It further clarified that probate proceedings determine due execution of the will, not title to property, so dismissal of an earlier letters-of-administration application did not create res judicata on ownership. Alleged estoppel also failed because no representation and reliance were shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>