<?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>1991 (11) TMI 263 - KARKATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198129</link>
    <description>An administrator pendente lite may be appointed in pending probate litigation where the will and codicils are genuinely disputed, the executors have renounced, and preservation of the estate requires protection; the court treated Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as a discretionary power and appointed a fit administrator. A stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was refused because the probate proceedings and the parallel suit were not directly and substantially the same, differing in nature and relief, so overlap in some facts did not bar interlocutory orders or justify suspension of the testamentary proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:18:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (11) TMI 263 - KARKATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198129</link>
      <description>An administrator pendente lite may be appointed in pending probate litigation where the will and codicils are genuinely disputed, the executors have renounced, and preservation of the estate requires protection; the court treated Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as a discretionary power and appointed a fit administrator. A stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was refused because the probate proceedings and the parallel suit were not directly and substantially the same, differing in nature and relief, so overlap in some facts did not bar interlocutory orders or justify suspension of the testamentary proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>