Will Probate given but probate order not given
4 years ago
I have WILL PROBATE of late mothers WILL which was proved before Jt. civil Judge AT THANE dated April 2019 but no probate order has been passed on the said WILL. I paid cidco fees 75000 and lawyers fees 45 thousand.Our lawyer failed to pass probate Order now what steps should I do to pass probate order on the said WILL.How much would it cost me
Siddharth Desai
Responded 3 years ago
A.Dear Sir,
The Probate Certificate issued to you by Hon'ble Court is the Probate Order passed by the Court. There is no other seperate Order passed by Hon'ble Court. #Will, #Probate
Thanks,
Adv. Siddharth Desai.
Bombay High Court.
The Probate Certificate issued to you by Hon'ble Court is the Probate Order passed by the Court. There is no other seperate Order passed by Hon'ble Court. #Will, #Probate
Thanks,
Adv. Siddharth Desai.
Bombay High Court.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Ayantika Mondal @ Prime Legal
Responded 4 years ago
A.Hi,
It is very unlikely that the order/judgment is not passed or may be pending. You need to share the case details to know the stage of the case to suggest appropriate steps.
thanks
It is very unlikely that the order/judgment is not passed or may be pending. You need to share the case details to know the stage of the case to suggest appropriate steps.
thanks
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Dear Sir,
The judge must pass such order and it his bounden duty. Your advocate must file an application for passing such order under section 151, 152 and 153 of Civil Procedure Code.
==================================================
Please give me Rank 5 and Review my Resume and Follow Me.
==================================================
SC ruling on 'probate of will' under Indian Succession Act
NEW DELHI, FEB. 25. The bar that is imposed by Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - in the matter of obtaining `probate' of the `will' under which the right is claimed as an executor or legatee - ``is only in respect of the establishment of the right as an executor or legatee and not in respect of the establishment of the right in any other capacity, and the section does not prohibit the will being looked into for purposes other than those mentioned in the section,'' the Supreme Court has emphasised.
``The bar to the establishment of the right is only for its establishment in a court of justice and not its being referred to in other proceedings before administrative or other Tribunals,'' the Bench said and added ``the section is a bar to everyone claiming under a will, whether as plaintiff or defendant, if no probate or letter of administration is granted.''
Delivering the judgment, Mr Justice S. Rajendra Babu dismissed connected writ petitions from two Indian Christians seeking the court to restrain the Union of India from enforcing the provisions of Section 213 of the Act against the Indian Christians.
The plea of the petitioners - which was repelled by the Bench - was that there was no rational basis for making the requirement of `probate' necessary for only a limited section of Indian citizens such as Indian Christians excluding other sections.
The Bench, on analysis of provision of the Act, noted ``it is applicable to Parsis after the amendment of the Act in 1962 and to Hindus who reside within the territories which on September 1, 1870 were subject to the Lt.Governor of Bengal or to areas covered by `original jurisdiction' of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras and to `all wills' made outside those territories and limits so far as they relate to immovable property situate within those territories and limits. If that is so, it cannot be said that the section is exclusively applicable only to Christians,'' the Bench held.
``The differences are not based on any religion but for historical reasons that in British Empire in India, probate was required to prove the right of a legatee or an executor but not in Part `B' or `C' states, the Bench said and added that position has continued even after the Constitution had come into force.''
``Historical reasons may justify differential treatment of separate geographical regions provided it bears a reason and just relation to the matter in respect of which differential treatment is accorded,'' the Bench observed adding that ``Uniformity in law has to be achieved, but that is a long drawn process.''
``The scope of Section 213(1) of the Act is that it prohibits recognition of rights as an executor or legatee under a will without production of a probate and sets down a rule of evidence and forms really a part of procedural requirement of the law of forum, the Bench which included Mr Justice R C Lakhoti said and pointed out that Section 213(2) of the Act indicates that its applicability is limited to cases of persons mentioned therein.''
``The effect of Section 213(2) of the Act is that the requirement of probate or other representation mentioned in sub- section (1) for the purpose of establishing the right as an executor or legatee in a court is made inapplicable in case of a `will' made by Mohammedans and in the case of `wills' coming under Section 57(c) of the Act,'' the Bench observed.
The judge must pass such order and it his bounden duty. Your advocate must file an application for passing such order under section 151, 152 and 153 of Civil Procedure Code.
==================================================
Please give me Rank 5 and Review my Resume and Follow Me.
==================================================
SC ruling on 'probate of will' under Indian Succession Act
NEW DELHI, FEB. 25. The bar that is imposed by Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - in the matter of obtaining `probate' of the `will' under which the right is claimed as an executor or legatee - ``is only in respect of the establishment of the right as an executor or legatee and not in respect of the establishment of the right in any other capacity, and the section does not prohibit the will being looked into for purposes other than those mentioned in the section,'' the Supreme Court has emphasised.
``The bar to the establishment of the right is only for its establishment in a court of justice and not its being referred to in other proceedings before administrative or other Tribunals,'' the Bench said and added ``the section is a bar to everyone claiming under a will, whether as plaintiff or defendant, if no probate or letter of administration is granted.''
Delivering the judgment, Mr Justice S. Rajendra Babu dismissed connected writ petitions from two Indian Christians seeking the court to restrain the Union of India from enforcing the provisions of Section 213 of the Act against the Indian Christians.
The plea of the petitioners - which was repelled by the Bench - was that there was no rational basis for making the requirement of `probate' necessary for only a limited section of Indian citizens such as Indian Christians excluding other sections.
The Bench, on analysis of provision of the Act, noted ``it is applicable to Parsis after the amendment of the Act in 1962 and to Hindus who reside within the territories which on September 1, 1870 were subject to the Lt.Governor of Bengal or to areas covered by `original jurisdiction' of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras and to `all wills' made outside those territories and limits so far as they relate to immovable property situate within those territories and limits. If that is so, it cannot be said that the section is exclusively applicable only to Christians,'' the Bench held.
``The differences are not based on any religion but for historical reasons that in British Empire in India, probate was required to prove the right of a legatee or an executor but not in Part `B' or `C' states, the Bench said and added that position has continued even after the Constitution had come into force.''
``Historical reasons may justify differential treatment of separate geographical regions provided it bears a reason and just relation to the matter in respect of which differential treatment is accorded,'' the Bench observed adding that ``Uniformity in law has to be achieved, but that is a long drawn process.''
``The scope of Section 213(1) of the Act is that it prohibits recognition of rights as an executor or legatee under a will without production of a probate and sets down a rule of evidence and forms really a part of procedural requirement of the law of forum, the Bench which included Mr Justice R C Lakhoti said and pointed out that Section 213(2) of the Act indicates that its applicability is limited to cases of persons mentioned therein.''
``The effect of Section 213(2) of the Act is that the requirement of probate or other representation mentioned in sub- section (1) for the purpose of establishing the right as an executor or legatee in a court is made inapplicable in case of a `will' made by Mohammedans and in the case of `wills' coming under Section 57(c) of the Act,'' the Bench observed.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
Will of Grandfather
Dear Client,
To ensure the authentic status of a pending case, you must obtain a certified copy of days proceedings or an order sheet of the latest hearing from the concerned Court where your probate...
Property distribution
Dear Client,
An individual gets the right to ancestral property by birth. Typically, ancestral property refers to property that has been inherited for four or more generations and has not been divide...
Brother unwilling to give copy of their late mothers Will to Sisters
Dear Client,
Both registered and unregistered wills can be challenged on similar grounds. However, certain challenges such as (i) Improper execution of the will; or (ii) genuineness on the signature o...
Unregistered will without signs of witnesses
Dear Client,
In the absence of both signatures of witnesses in the Will and its registration, the Will made by your grandfather in favor of your father becomes infructuous/invalid and unenforceable u...
can a BENEFICIARY in the will be appointed as an executor
Dear client, yes a benificiary a will can be appointed as an executor under Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Read Blogs on Will
Will Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
