https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200593 Probate granted by a competent testamentary court was treated as conclusive proof of the will's validity, due execution and the testator's testamentary capacity, so the defendants could not later impeach the will. The suit was not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because the defendants failed to prove identity of cause of action by producing the earlier plaints, and separate claims arising from the dissolution deed were not required to be combined. On appropriation, payments made without a debtor's specific direction were applied first to interest and then to principal, which justified enhancement of the decree. The appeal failed and the cross-objection succeeded. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:43:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200593 Probate granted by a competent testamentary court was treated as conclusive proof of the will's validity, due execution and the testator's testamentary capacity, so the defendants could not later impeach the will. The suit was not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because the defendants failed to prove identity of cause of action by producing the earlier plaints, and separate claims arising from the dissolution deed were not required to be combined. On appropriation, payments made without a debtor's specific direction were applied first to interest and then to principal, which justified enhancement of the decree. The appeal failed and the cross-objection succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200593