https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290933 Notice under Section 424 of the Civil Procedure Code was not required for a suit seeking to restrain a threatened interference by injunction, because the provision was directed to acts already done and the defendants were sued as trespassers rather than in their official capacity. Jurisdiction was sustained where part of the immovable estate lay within the High Court's local limits, since that local asset formed part of the estate and supported relief affecting the whole. The minor adopted son was not treated as proprietor under the Court of Wards Act because the estate vested in the executrix and remained unadministered, leaving him only a beneficial and contingent interest. The declaration and injunction were therefore granted and the assumption of charge failed. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 1908 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:20:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290933 Notice under Section 424 of the Civil Procedure Code was not required for a suit seeking to restrain a threatened interference by injunction, because the provision was directed to acts already done and the defendants were sued as trespassers rather than in their official capacity. Jurisdiction was sustained where part of the immovable estate lay within the High Court's local limits, since that local asset formed part of the estate and supported relief affecting the whole. The minor adopted son was not treated as proprietor under the Court of Wards Act because the estate vested in the executrix and remained unadministered, leaving him only a beneficial and contingent interest. The declaration and injunction were therefore granted and the assumption of charge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Aug 1908 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290933