<?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>1921 (2) TMI 5 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290934</link>
    <description>Revocation of probate under the Probate and Administration Act requires a clearly established statutory ground supported by specific pleadings and proof. The Court stated that probate does not become useless or inoperative merely because executors have not completed all duties, where the estate has not otherwise passed beyond their control; that ground failed. It further held that objections to accounts must identify a particular omission or falsity, since the statute contemplates an inventory and account rather than periodic annual accounts; vague challenges were insufficient. Finally, delay in filing an inventory did not justify revocation once filed and accepted, and no materially false item was proved; that ground also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 1921 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:30:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1921 (2) TMI 5 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290934</link>
      <description>Revocation of probate under the Probate and Administration Act requires a clearly established statutory ground supported by specific pleadings and proof. The Court stated that probate does not become useless or inoperative merely because executors have not completed all duties, where the estate has not otherwise passed beyond their control; that ground failed. It further held that objections to accounts must identify a particular omission or falsity, since the statute contemplates an inventory and account rather than periodic annual accounts; vague challenges were insufficient. Finally, delay in filing an inventory did not justify revocation once filed and accepted, and no materially false item was proved; that ground also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 1921 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>