The Court refused to entertain a petition seeking probate of a will, invoking powers under Section 271 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to remand the matter to the Court at Bombay due to jurisdictional convenience and pending related proceedings.
The petition for probate was refused and disposed of; the petitioner is directed to approach the Court at Bombay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~18
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Meenakshi Singh & Mr. Hars Prakash Advs. for R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R % 15.11.2016
TEST.CAS. 65/1996
Page 1 of 2
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
NOVEMBER 15, 2016/ „gsr‟..
TEST.CAS. 65/1996
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for probate can be entertained where the attesting witness has not been examined in person despite the petitioner’s health-related inability to travel.
Whether a Commission can be issued to examine the petitioner when the attesting witness is resident in Delhi.
Whether powers under Section 271 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 can be invoked to refuse to entertain the petition on grounds of convenience and justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHA LATA GUPTA
THE STATE & ORS.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
