9911796707
TMI Blog1894 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and appointed him executor, but the latter contended that the alleged will was a forgery and repudiated appellant's claim to probate. He urged further that she died intestate leaving a son surviving her, though he survived her but for three months, and that respondent was entitled to letters of administration in regard to her estate. But when the application for probate came on for disposal on the 16th February 1892, as the appellant's vakil stated that he had no instructions, the application was dismissed with costs. No appeal was preferred from the order of dismissal. 2. But on the 10th March 1892 appellant made another application for probate to the District Court. The Judge held that there must first be a petition asking, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended to apply to an application for probate, an application under the Religious Endowments Act, an application for a certificate to collect the debts, an application for the appointment of new trustees, and similar applications. It was also explained in the case of Bai Manekbai v. Manekji Kavasji I.L.R. 7 Bom. 213 and in re Ishan Chundur Roy I.L.R. 6 Cal. 707 that Article 178 of Schedule II of Act XV of 1877 is limited to applications made under the Code of Civil Procedure, that an examination of all the other articles in the second schedule relating to applications, that is to say of the third division of that schedule, shows that the applications therein contemplated are such as are made under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a second application on the 10th March 1892, it was not competent to the Judge to impose a restriction upon appellant's right and to direct that he should make an application under the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to let in the law of limitation and indirectly to defeat the object of the legislature in exempting applications for probate from the Act of Limitations. The Judge is also in error in construing Section 261, which only renders the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as nearly as may be so as to let in the limitation bar, from which applications for probate are saved. 6. This order must be, and is hereby, set aside, as both appeals were heard at the same time, and as the same vakils appeared in both, there would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
