<?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>1987 (11) TMI 396 - HIGH COURT ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198127</link>
    <description>An executor claiming under a will need not await probate before continuing a pending suit, because under Section 211 of the Succession Act the executor is the deceased&#039;s legal representative and the property vests in that representative on death. In that scheme, the executor may continue the lis under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC. The distinction between an executor and an administrator was noted, but it did not justify refusal of transposition on the sole ground of absence of probate. The rejection of the application to transpose the petitioners as plaintiffs was therefore legally untenable, and transposition was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:47:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 396 - HIGH COURT ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198127</link>
      <description>An executor claiming under a will need not await probate before continuing a pending suit, because under Section 211 of the Succession Act the executor is the deceased&#039;s legal representative and the property vests in that representative on death. In that scheme, the executor may continue the lis under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC. The distinction between an executor and an administrator was noted, but it did not justify refusal of transposition on the sole ground of absence of probate. The rejection of the application to transpose the petitioners as plaintiffs was therefore legally untenable, and transposition was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>