Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Succession Act, 1925 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2 |
’Probate’—Its meaning.
|
Khitindra Chandra Bhattacharya Vs. Jalada Devi | 35 DLR (AD) 102 |
Section 23 |
Consanguinity
|
Shamsul Islam and others Vs. Badiar Zaman alias Bablu and another | 15 BLD (AD) 243 |
Section 23 |
Consanguinity
|
Shamsul Islam and others Vs. Badiar Zaman alias Bablu and another | 15 BLD (AD) 243 |
Section 28 |
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
|
Sree Paresh Chandra Pramanik vs Md. Mokbul Hossain & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 64 |
Section 59 |
Testamentary capacity of the testator — — Whether it is to be presumed from the proof of due execution of the will—When it is found that the testator put his signature or mark on the will then it shall be presumed that he knew the nature and effect of his action — But this presumption is liable to he rebutted by proof of suspicious circumstances surrounding the will — Even if the question of testamentary capacity is not raised by the caveator yet the propounder is not exonerated from the duty to prove that the testator had sound and disposing mind and he had fully understood the nature and effect of executing the will —- But the burden of proving that the will is the outcome of undue influence, fraud, coercion or misrepresentation of facts is on those who attack the will. Paresh Chandra Bhowinik Vs. iliralal Nath and another, 4BLD (AD) 99 |
Paresh Chandra Bhowinik Vs. iliralal Nath and another | 4 BLD (AD) 99 |
Section 63 |
Will—Deposition of attesting witnesses to the document necessary to prove execution of a will. Paresh Chandra Bhowmick Vs. Hiralal Nath (1984)36 DLR (AD) 156. |
Paresh Chandra Bhowmick Vs. Hiralal Nath | 36 DLR (AD) 156 |
Section 63 |
Execution of a will—How it is proved— Due execution of a will means not only that the testator executed it by putting his signature or affixing his mark but also it requires that the testator executed it in sound mind. fully knowing the nature and effect of his action—It must be proved that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time he put his signature or thumb impression on the will—It must he proved by fulfilling the statutory requirements of the Evidence Act and the Succession Act—For proof of execution of a will the law requires at least two attesting witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign his name or affix his mark to the will — Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), Ss. 67 and 68. Paresh Chandra Bhowmik Vs. Hiralal Nath and another, 4 BLD (AD) 199 |
Paresh Chandra Bhowmik Vs. Hiralal Nath and another | 4 BLD (AD) 199 |
Section 102, 233 and 235 |
When the first executor refused to act, the second executor could legitimately file the petition for probate—Second executor being dead, his heirs being his legatees can maintain a proceeding to obtain probate of the will. Khitindra Chandra Bhattacharya Vs. Jalada Devi (1983)35 DLR (AD) 102. |
Khitindra Chandra Bhattacharya Vs. Jalada Devi | 35 DLR (AD) 102 |
Sections 102, 222, 232, 235 and 268 |
Substitution — Heirs of deceased plaintiff in a probate suit may be
substituted — The proceeding does not abate with the death of the
executor — It is not a personal action — A beneficiary under the will
may continue the proceeding.
|
Khitindora Chandra Bhattacharya and another Vs. Jalanda Devi | 3 BLD (AD) 245 |
Section 211(1) |
The executor or administrator of a deceased person, whether is his legal
representative for all purposes and all the property of a deceased person
vests in him as such.
|
Sree Jogendra Nath alias Gobinda Sarker V. Amulya Chandra Sarker & ors. | 13 BLD (AD) 160 |
Section 211 |
The respondent is not without any remedy for the execution of the decree in case of a suit for specific performance of contract as the executor is a legal representative for all purposes. Shubra Nandi Majumder vs Begum Mahmuda Khatoon 42 DLR (AD) 133. |
Shubra Nandi Majumder vs Begum Mahmuda Khatoon | 42 DLR (AD) 133 |
Section 211(1) |
Suit on the basis of will but not on the basis of heirship or inheritance under the provisions of sec. 211(1) of the Act the executor or the Administrator for probate of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes—the principle of specific plea of ouster. [Para-9] Jagendra Nath Vs. Amulya Chandra Sarker 1 BLT (AD)-38. |
Jagendra Nath Vs. Amulya Chandra Sarker | 1 BLT (AD) 38 |
Section 211 |
Part performance — Plea of part performance (that the plaintiff has delivered possession of part of the property) whether tenable in a probate proceeding? — Plaintiff will not be without remedy for execution of decree (if it is made in her favour) — Principle of part performance creates no real rights — It is estoppel between the proposed transferee and the transferor which shall have no operation against a third person — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), S. 53A. Shubra Nandi Majumder Vs. Mrs. Begain Mahinuda Khatoon, 10 BLD (AD) 84 |
Shubra Nandi Majumder Vs. Mrs. Begain Mahinuda Khatoon | 10 BLD (AD) 84 |
Section 211(1) |
The executor or administrator of a deceased person, whether is his legal
representative for all purposes and all the property of a deceased person
vests in him as such.
|
Sree Jogendra Nath alias Gobinda Sarker V. Amulya Chandra Sarker & ors. | 13 BLD (AD) 160 |
Section 213 r/w sec. 57, 58 |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Jahanara Begum =VS= Hazi Nizamuddin | 16 LM (AD) 582 |
Section 232 |
Enemy property — Will executed before, and testator dying after, the
property be
|
Goutain Ran/an Sen and others Vs. Bangladesh and others | 1 BLD (AD) 126 |
Section 276 |
Objection at the belated stage–
|
Pollob Kumer Dev =VS= Ganendra Nath Roy | 1 LM (AD) 189 |
Section 283 |
The respondent who has been allegedly in possession of the disputed properties through a contract is not entitled to citation at all. Shubra Nandi Majumder vs Begum Mahmuda Khatoon 42 DLR (AD) 133. |
Shubra Nandi Majumder vs Begum Mahmuda Khatoon | 42 DLR (AD) 133 |
Section 283 |
Probate proceeding—Court is only con- cerned with due execution of the
will and not with the question whether the testatory had title to the
property or whether he had any authority to otherwise deal with the
property
|
Paresh Chandra Sen Gupta Vs Abul Hashem and others | 1 BLD (AD) 218 |
Section 283 |
Probate proceeding — Addition of party— Person not claiming interest in
the property through the testator is not entitled to be added as a party.
|
Sreemati charubala Sen Gupta being dead her substituted legatee Paresh chandra Deb Gupta Vs. Abul Hashem and others | 1 BLD (AD) 218 |
Section 283(1)(C) |
Probate proceeding — Locus standi to be added as a party in such a proceeding — Claim of plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract relating to the testator’s property whether tenable?—The plaintiff is entitled to bring a suit for redress of her grievance for breach of contract and she has already field a suit for specific performance of contract—If she succeeds the suit will be decreed and the decree will be excuted against the executor of the will—In the present case the will does not disentitle her (plaintiff) to which she is otherwise entitled — In such a position there is no compelling necessity for adding her as a party in a succession pro- ceeding when the question is whether she is entitled to citation, if at all Shubra Nandi Majumder Vs Mrs Be gum Mahmuda Khatoon, 10 BLD(AD)84 |
Shubra Nandi Majumder Vs Mrs Be gum Mahmuda Khatoon | 10 BLD (AD) 84 |
Sections 286, 287 and 288 |
Reading the provisions of section 286, 287 and 288 of the Succession Act, particularly the explanation of a word “contention” mentioned in section 286 of the Act, it is reasonable to hold that a District Delegate shall cease his hands under section 286 as soon as a contention as to the grant of probate or letters of administration is raised in any case. Even in the case of a non-contentions petition, in case of any doubt, the District Delegate has to seek directions of the District Judge. He cannot, however, reject a non-contentions petition for probate or letters of administration as has been done in the instant case in violation of section 288 of the Succession Act. The caveat or respondent claiming through the testator has no difficulty in contesting the probate proceeding. Haripada Ghose and another Vs. Gopal Chandra Ghose, 15 BLD (AD) 140. |
Haripada Ghose and another Vs. Gopal Chandra Ghose | 15 BLD (AD) 140 |
Sections 286 & 288 |
A District Delegate shall cease his hands under section 286 as soon as a contention as to the grant of probate or letters of administration is raised in any case and the matter shall be returned to the District Judge in — accordance with the provisions of section 288. Haripada Ghose and another vs Gopal Chandra Ghose 47 DLR (AD) 164. |
Haripada Ghose and another vs Gopal Chandra Ghose | 47 DLR (AD) 164 |
Sections 286, 287 and 288 |
Reading the provisions of section 286, 287 and 288 of the Succession Act, particularly the explanation of a word “contention” mentioned in section 286 of the Act, it is reasonable to hold that a District Delegate shall cease his hands under section 286 as soon as a contention as to the grant of probate or letters of administration is raised in any case. Even in the case of a non-contentions petition, in case of any doubt, the District Delegate has to seek directions of the District Judge. He cannot, however, reject a non-contentions petition for probate or letters of administration as has been done in the instant case in violation of section 288 of the Succession Act. The caveat or respondent claiming through the testator has no difficulty in contesting the probate proceeding. Haripada Ghose and another Vs. Gopal Chandra Ghose, 15 BLD (AD) 140. |
Haripada Ghose and another Vs. Gopal Chandra Ghose | 15 BLD (AD) 140 |
Section 371 |
Interpretation of statute — Whether the Court will interfere when the matter raised becomes infructuous — As the case was finally decided the matter relating to maintainability of the case and the question of examination of the case and the question of examination on commission stood infructuous long before the leave was granted — The Appellate Division will not work in vain in deciding a question of law in a dead matter. Mrs. Ummeda Islam Khan Vs. Saiheuddin Khan (‘Minor) and others, 7BLD (AD) 89. |
Mrs. Ummeda Islam Khan Vs. Saiheuddin Khan (‘Minor) and others | 7 BLD (AD) 89 |
Section 372 |
Having considered the definition of 'debt' and the decided cases where ornaments were lying with the Bank could be considered as 'debt', and as such the ornaments lying with the Bangladesh Bank being recovered from Ms H Dey Jewellers are a 'debt' which could be claimed by its owners. Aloke Nath Dey vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner 56 DLR (AD) 66. |
Aloke Nath Dey vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner | 56 DLR (AD) 66 |
Section 383 |
Revocation of certificate
|
Arabinda Sarker Vs. Bimalendu Bhowmick and others | 16 BLD (AD) 18 |
Section 383 |
A person seeking revocation of certificate granted by a competent Court must have some interest, immediate or remote, in the property of the testator. Arabinda Sarker vs Bimalendu Bhowmik 48 DLR (AD) 182. |
Arabinda Sarker vs Bimalendu Bhowmik | 48 DLR (AD) 182 |
Section 383 |
Revocation of certificate
|
Arabinda Sarker Vs. Bimalendu Bhowmick and others | 16 BLD (AD) 18 |
Succession to property— |
Succession to property—Custom, Force of.
|
Mst. Qaiser Khatoon Vs. Mvi. Abdul Khaliq | 25 DLR (SC) 104 |