9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otted to the mother and one Ambassador car, but relying on the decisions in Kuppayammal v. Ammani Ammal 22 ILR Madras 345, Muttyjan and others v. Ahmed Ally and others 8 ILR 370 and Lalit Chandra Chowdhury v. Baikuntha Nath Chowdhary and others 14 CWN 463, he contended that the affidavit-of-assets must disclose all the assets. Learned Counsel for the executors points out that the mother is one of the executrix executing the Will and the property would go to her. The caveator has not disputed the execution of the Will. Neither he had disputed the testamentary capacity of the testator nor he has claimed any interest in the assets, which are in dispute. Therefore, the caveat should be discharged. He drew my attention to Rules 24 and 25 of Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of objection to the application. The only objection that has been raised in this case is absence of disclosure of the assets in the affidavit. Our High Court in Dinendra Kumar Bose (supra) in similar situation has taken the view that in a probate case, the Court is concerned with the examination of the testamentary capacity of the testator and the execution of the Will. It cannot go into any question relating to title, which is within the domain of Civil Court. A Probate Court cannot adjudicate any question relating to title. Grant of probate does not confer any right or title upon any person in respect of the property in question. The only question with which the Probate Court is concerned is as to whether the testator was physically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) is related to an administration suit in which creditors were interested. Therefore, in that case, disclosure of assets had much relevance and importance, which is a fact distinguishable in the present case where the caveator has not claimed any interest over the same unlike that in the said decision. In Kuppayammal (supra) the caveator had claimed interest in the assets and that this had more relevance and it was sought to be disclosed. In this case, no interest has been claimed by the caveator. That apart there is really no other ground for which the grant of probate is objected to. The reliance on section 276 of the Indian Succession Act also does not help the caveator having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
