Sec.57 and 213 of INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - in A.P. No probate is necessary for joining as legal heir under Will - Trial court dismissed the I.A. - their lordships held that 1) It is not necessary for the executor or legatee of a Will to obtain Probates of the Wills in the State of Andhra Pradesh (Also in the Telangana State after its formation). (2) For considering an application to come on record as the legal representative of a deceased party, the Court need not undertake a roving enquiry on the validity of the Will(s). A summary enquiry into the claim of execution of the Wills is enough for the Courts to permit a person who claims to be the legal representative of the deceased party to come on record for the limited purpose of continuing the proceedings. (3) The burden lies on the executant or legatee to prove the Will(s) propounded by him in the suit or final decree or other proceedings, as the case may be, as per the provisions of Chapter V of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if he asserts any right over the property of the party based on the Will(s) after his coming on record. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed - 2015 A.P.(2014)msklawreports

Sec.57 and 213 of INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - in A.P. No probate is necessary for joining as legal heir under Will - Trial court dismissed the I.A. - their lordships held that 1) It is not necessary for the executor or legatee of a Will to obtain Probates of the Wills in the State of Andhra Pradesh (Also in the Telangana State after its formation). (2) For considering an application to come on record as the legal representative of a deceased party, the Court need not undertake a roving enquiry on the validity of the Will(s). A summary enquiry into the claim of execution of the Wills is enough for the Courts to permit a person who claims to be the legal representative of the deceased party to come on record for the limited purpose of continuing the proceedings. (3) The burden lies on the executant or legatee to prove the Will(s) propounded by him in the suit or final decree or other proceedings, as the case may be, as per the provisions of Chapter V of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if he asserts any right over the property of the party based on the Will(s) after his coming on record. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed - 2015 A.P.(2014)msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS