<?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>1966 (3) TMI 91 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200028</link>
    <description>A Civil Judge&#039;s competence to grant letters of administration in a contentious testamentary matter was preserved by a continuing High Court notification that vested Civil Judges, Senior Division, with District Judge powers, so the jurisdiction objection failed. Shebaitship of a Hindu temple was treated as property because it carried a beneficial proprietary interest in the management and usufruct of the endowment, so an instrument disposing of shebaitship fell within the definition of a will. Due execution was also proved by the attesting witness and scribe, and the use of affidavits in examination-in-chief did not vitiate the proceeding where the parties assented and cross-examination was held.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:16:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 91 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200028</link>
      <description>A Civil Judge&#039;s competence to grant letters of administration in a contentious testamentary matter was preserved by a continuing High Court notification that vested Civil Judges, Senior Division, with District Judge powers, so the jurisdiction objection failed. Shebaitship of a Hindu temple was treated as property because it carried a beneficial proprietary interest in the management and usufruct of the endowment, so an instrument disposing of shebaitship fell within the definition of a will. Due execution was also proved by the attesting witness and scribe, and the use of affidavits in examination-in-chief did not vitiate the proceeding where the parties assented and cross-examination was held.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>