https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313754 Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code does not support an injunction in a proceeding for letters of administration because such a proceeding does not determine title to property and therefore involves no property in dispute within that Rule. A Chartered High Court may, however, exercise inherent jurisdiction to grant an injunction in personam where justice requires preservation of disputed assets pending adjudication. A valid nomination under Section 5(1) of the Provident Funds Act prevails over any testamentary disposition, so the provident fund sum nominated to the son could not be restrained or treated as part of the estate. Restraint was justified only over the remaining disputed balances. en-us Mon, 01 May 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2024 13:16:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313754 Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code does not support an injunction in a proceeding for letters of administration because such a proceeding does not determine title to property and therefore involves no property in dispute within that Rule. A Chartered High Court may, however, exercise inherent jurisdiction to grant an injunction in personam where justice requires preservation of disputed assets pending adjudication. A valid nomination under Section 5(1) of the Provident Funds Act prevails over any testamentary disposition, so the provident fund sum nominated to the son could not be restrained or treated as part of the estate. Restraint was justified only over the remaining disputed balances. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 May 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313754