NRI-Probate & Intestacy

NRI-Probate & Intestacy Interested in Wills and Intestacy, in the US and India, especially as laws affect Non-Resident indians.

Indian Evidence Act §§§ 63;65(a); 66. Indian Registration Act 1908 §33 THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER … APPELLANT(...
21/02/2026

Indian Evidence Act §§§ 63;65(a); 66. Indian Registration Act 1908 §33
THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S) Vs T. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [@ SLP (C) NO. 11868 OF 2024] J U D G M E N T Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment restoring the trial court decree upheld. Feb 6 2026

Did Defendant-Appellant No 1’s purported notarized copy of Plaintiff’s original POA, meet the requirements under IEA§§65, 66, to be admitted as secondary documentary evidence under IEA§ 63(2), properly authenticated for executing Defendants’ sales deeds under Indian Registration Act 1908 §33?

No. IEA§ 63(2) requires the copy to be an accurate copy of the original. In order to adduce secondary evidence, IEA§§65, 66 provide a conjunctive two-step process. Defendant-Appellant No 1 could not provide foundational facts as to the existence, condition, or content of the POA nor establish valid reasons the original could not be furnished . Defendant-Appellant No 1 failed to prove any valid authority to sell the property. The court examined the probative value of the document and could not legally allow Defendants to adduce secondary evidence. The PoA was unregistered and its genuineness unproven. Therefore, the resulting sale deeds executed in 2007 remained invalid and void.
1st Respondent filed for declaration, perpetual injunction, and damages for use and occupation of the subject properties.

In 1978 Plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney (“PoA”) in favour of the 1st Defendant. (Exhibit A-4 ). The 1st Defendant- Appellant traces the authority to sell the property to a notarized photocopy of the purported PoA(Exh. B-2)
The Defendant-Appellant No 1 failed to produce the original PoA (Exh. B-2) despite being its holder. His explanation was inconsistent and contradictory. in non-compliance with IEA §§ 65,66.

CPC Order XXII Abatement- mechanical application vs merits hearing; CPC§§151 and 152 clerical errors; Res judicata.KISH...
05/02/2026

CPC Order XXII Abatement- mechanical application vs merits hearing; CPC§§151 and 152 clerical errors; Res judicata.

KISHORILAL(D) THR. L.RS & ORS APPELLANT(S) VS GOPAL & ORS RESPONDENTS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO 122 of 2026 SLP (C) No. 36787 of 2017 Leave granted. 12 January, 2026

Does an appeal mechanically abate due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of one deceased legal heir under CPC Order XXII?

No. There is a distinction between non-substitution of the lrs/ legal heirs of a deceased party and non-substitution of one of the heirs of a deceased party. In the latter, if the interest of the deceased party is sufficiently represented by other heirs/ lrs on record, there will be no abatement. A decree/order would be executable On the date of filing the appeal, the estate of Kishorilal was sufficiently represented with three legal heirs on record, besides defendants- transferees lis pendens to whom Kishorilal had transferred title

Does an earlier court order preclude later abatement findings (res judicata within the same proceeding)?

Yes. In 2013 the High Court rejected Gopal’s claim of abatement due to non-substitution of Murarilal's heirs, because the estate was represented by the remaining heirs and transferees.

What is the effect of impleadment and clerical errors in orders.
CPC§§151 and 152 permit the correction of a pure clerical/ typographical error at any stage, for adjudication on merits.

Plaintiff- respondent Gopal sought specific performance of a purchase agreement against Kishorilal. During pendency of the suit, Kishorilal sold to Brajmohan and Manoj vide sale-deed. They were impleaded as defendants- transferees lis pendens (purchasers during litigation, whose title is subject to the suit's outcome
(Transfer of Property Act, 1882 §52).
In 2005,during pendency of the joint High Court appeal, Kishorilal died . One of his four substituted legal heirs, Murarilal, died in 2007. Upon a 2011 application to delete Murarilal on the ground that Kishorilal’s interest was sufficiently represented by his other LRs, and lis pendens transferees, the Order erroneously deleted deceased Kishorilal .
In 2017 the High Court, accepted Gopal’s renewed abatement plea due to the delayed substitution by Murlidhar’s heirs

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Written content must be substantiated by written proof. Indian Evidence Act§§ 1872 91 and 92; Order VI Rule 4 CPC testH...
26/01/2026

Written content must be substantiated by written proof. Indian Evidence Act§§ 1872 91 and 92; Order VI Rule 4 CPC test

HEMALATHA (D) BY LRS. .…. APPELLANTS vs TUKARAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS. ..…RESPONDENTS SUPREME COURT CIVILAPPEAL NO. 6640 OF 2010. Appeal allowed. 2010 High Court judgment and order set aside. Costs in favour of Appellants , Jan 22, 2026

Did the Respondent- Plaintiff meet the threshold for declaring the registered Sale Deed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of Appellant-Defendant No.1 ?

No. It is a settled law that a registered Sale Deed carries a presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality. Evidence of oral agreement or statement cannot be admitted to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms. IEA§§ 1872 91, 92.
The person alleging a registered Deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading and evidence, akin to an Order VI Rule 4 CPC test, if he relies on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence.

The Court also noted the urgent need for the digitization of registered documents and land records using secure, tamper-proof technologies such as Blockchain.

The appeal before the Court arose from a dispute over a 1971 registered sale deed, which Respondent-Plaintiff sought to portray as a mortgage transaction in disguise.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Importance of Attesting Witness. Indian Succession Act(1925) §63(c ) ; Indian Evidence Act(1872)§68 Mandatory proof of...
17/01/2026

Importance of Attesting Witness. Indian Succession Act(1925) §63(c ) ; Indian Evidence Act(1872)§68 Mandatory proof of ex*****on of Will by attesting witness capable of giving evidence.

A. KAMALA BAI (D) TH:LRS. Vs B. KANNA RAO (D) THR. LRS SUPREME COURT Civil Appeal C.A. No.136/2013 Appeal dismissed. Dec. 4 2025 ORDER

Could the attesting witness prove the genuineness of the ex*****on of the alleged Will under ISA §63(c ) and IEA§68 if he deposed in court, ignorance as to who gave instructions regarding the preparation of his chief affidavit and its contents , as well as the contents of the Will?

No ISA §63(c ) and IEA§68 necessitate one mandatory attesting witness depose in Court that he has prepared the chief affidavit under his own instructions, in order for the Court to assess his credibility as a true attester. Even if the attesting witness did not know the contents of the Will, he has to depose that he prepared the chief affidavit under his own instructions and know the contents of the affidavit

Appellant’s predecessor in interest, Kamala Bai, filed a property suit against her son. During pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the original plaintiff died . Appellant impleaded under CPC(1908) Order XXII, Rule 3 to bring him on record as appellant/ substituted plaintiff, based on an alleged Will dated 11.3.1999. On inquiry as to the genuineness of the Will, the High Court did not find the sole attesting witness credible in his cross examination because did not know who gave instructions regarding preparation his chief affidavit nor the contents of the affidavit.

: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Constitution of India Art.21; Passports Act 1967§§6(2)(f ),22; 1993 Notification GSR 570(E) MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL ...AP...
06/01/2026

Constitution of India Art.21; Passports Act 1967§§6(2)(f ),22; 1993 Notification GSR 570(E)

MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL No……of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) NO. 17769 of 2025) Appeal allowed December 19, 2025

Does Passports Act 1967 §6(2)(f) bar a citizen in pending criminal proceedings, from exercising his liberty interest to hold a passport and to travel abroad, as guaranteed by the Constitution Art 21?

Not entirely. The court may temper the legal concept of possession of a passport (the liberty interest of Art. 21 ) with the legal concept of travel abroad. The Central government is empowered to grant exemptions to the restrictions under §6F(2) by virtue of the statutory exemption mechanism under §22 and GSR 570(E), using proportionality and fairness. If a competent criminal court grants no objection for passport renewal the applicant falls within the exempted class.

Can administrative authorities override judicial orders?

No. The passport authorities cannot demand specific future travel details at the stage of renewal, in the face of an exemption granted by the court. An indefinite denial of passport renewal would amount to a disproportionate restriction.

The appellant had several pending criminal cases. The Delhi High Court authorised renewal for ten years and the NIA Court imposed stringent conditions .
The Passport office Kolkata and Kolkata High Court declined to consider the statutory exemption mechanism under §22 and GSR 570(E), taking the view that the permissions granted by the criminal courts were insufficient in the absence of an express order permitting foreign travel for a specified period
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to re-issue an ordinary passport for the normal period of ten years, subject to continued compliance with all conditions imposed by the criminal courts.
: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Indian Succession Act, 1925§63(c); Indian Evidence Act, 1872§ 68. K. S. DINACHANDRAN …. APPELLANT vs SHYLA JOSEPH & ORS...
27/12/2025

Indian Succession Act, 1925§63(c); Indian Evidence Act, 1872§ 68.

K. S. DINACHANDRAN …. APPELLANT vs SHYLA JOSEPH & ORS. .…RESPONDENTS. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos…of 2025 ( Leave Petition (C Nos.11057-11058 of 2025. With Civil Appeal No… of 2025 ( Leave Petition (C) No.11639 of 2025. Appeals allowed. Suit dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of. Judgment. Dec. 17 2025

Does the response elicited to a leading question in cross examination, bear equal probative value?

Yes. Upon cross-examination, DW2 unequivocally affirmed as to the testator’s sound testamentary capacity; the presence of the testator; the attesting witnesses and the signatures affixed on the Will by each of them. On cross examination, in response to a positive suggestion, he answered that all persons(including the second attesting witness) signed on the Will on the date when the witness signed the same.

Does the Rule of Prudence require the court to accept the testator’s justifications in excluding one of his children from his Will?

Yes. The court cannot substitute its opinions in place of that of the testator. There can be no interference to the Will which stands proved unequivocally.
Testator excluded one of his children from his Will providing justification. The court observed the caution required in upholding a Will which divests the legal heirs as a whole, is not the situation existing in the instant case.

: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Caveatable interest. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act§ 30RHEA PARTHASARATHY, PETITIONER v. SONALI NIMESH LOKHANDWA...
20/12/2025

Caveatable interest. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act§ 30

RHEA PARTHASARATHY, PETITIONER v. SONALI NIMESH LOKHANDWALA CAVEATOR AND SMRUTI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. RESPONDENT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION. INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20148 OF 2025 IN CAVEAT (L) NO.19816 OF 2025 IN PETITION NO.1131 OF 2025 . 2025:BHC-OS:14411 JUDGMENT. Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Caveat dismissed. 3.9.2025

Does the Caveatrix acquire a caveatable interest as (i) a beneficiary under the Will; and/or (ii) deceased’s nominee with respect to an immovable property?

No. A caveat challenges the legality, validity and/or genuineness of a Will. Secondly, only a person whose claims arise through a recognized line of succession, and whose rights are likely to be defeated by the grant of a probate or letters of administration, can possess a caveatable interest. The Applicant- Petitioner is a Class 1 heir under the 1956 Hindu Succession Act. The residuary clause in the Will also vests her with all undisposed property. The Caveatrix, a purported second cousin of the deceased wife, has no basis to file the caveat, since she has neither challenged the Will, nor is an heir under intestate succession who would benefit if the Will were invalidated.

A nomination under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act§ 30 merely indicates the person with whom the society should deal, and does not confer ownership rights in the nominee to the exclusion of the legal heirs. The rights of the heirs are not lost, and the Society’s role remains administrative until succession is duly determined by law or Court. A nominee is a trustee, not an heir or legatee

Caveatrix has no rights whether the Will is proved or not. In either scenario, the Applicant-Petitioner, being the sole heir, is entitled to the estate. Whether or not the flat is specifically covered by the Will, the Applicant-Petitioner inherits the estate as heir. The Caveatrix can file a separate civil suit to establish her rights as a beneficiary or as a nominee.

The Petition by adopted daughter seeks grant of Letters of Administration of the Joint Will and Testament and Joint Codicil of the deceased.

: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Grant of Probate Petition: Limitations Act 1963 Art 137. Indian Evidence Act, 1872§ 68; Indian Succession Act 1925§ 63...
11/12/2025

Grant of Probate Petition: Limitations Act 1963 Art 137. Indian Evidence Act, 1872§ 68; Indian Succession Act 1925§ 63.

SANJEEV CHADHA APPELLANT vs D.P.SACHDEVA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 44/2023, CM APPL. 62495/2024, CM APPL.21476/2025 and CM APPL. 37702/2025 J U D G M E N T 17.10.2025

Do the Residuary Provisions of the Limitations Act 1963 Art 137 apply to petitions for grant of probate/letters of administration? ( limitation of 3 years which begins to run when the right to apply accrues).

No. The right to petition for a grant of probate is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased.
Further, attesting witness duly proved the ex*****on of the will in accordance with the requirements of Indian Evidence Act§68. A Will is required to be proved by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses. The attesting witness who scribed the Will provided unimpeachable evidence and further established that the Will was executed in conformity with the provisions of Indian Succession Act 1925§ 63 Appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the Petition filed after seven years from the date of death.

Appellant [Respondent No.5(a) challenged the 06.10.2022 judgment, passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Testamentary Case No. 28/2005 granting Respondent No. 1 [Executor/Petitioner before the Single Judge], probate/letters of administration in respect of the Registered Will dated 20.05.1993 executed by the deceased, bequeathing her properties in favour of her three sons and one grandson while excluding one of her sons, the Appellant’s father [Respondent No. 5 before the Single Judge].

: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

08/12/2025

"There are three sorts of lawyers – able, unable, and lamentable. David Surtees

Constitution of India Articles 226/227 Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under ...
02/12/2025

Constitution of India Articles 226/227 Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. Article 227 governs jurisdictional issues of the courts in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice, not mere errors.

SHRI DIGANT Appellant vs M/S. P.D.T. TRADING CO. & ORS. Respondents
Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No(s). 13801/2025 (C) No. 5813/2023. Leave granted . Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside. Writ Petition No.4227 of 2021 dismissed. Trial Court order as affirmed by the appellate court restored. Nov 18, 2025

Did the Appellate Court decision to dismiss the Defendant-Respondents’ appeal fall within the supervisory jurisdictional powers of the High Court?

No. The only issue before the High Court was whether, on account of Defendant-Respondents’ lawyer’s pursis(claiming ‘no instructions given by clients’), the trial court ought to have proceeded to decide the suit without ascertaining whether the latter were duly informed about their lawyer’s withdrawal from the case. The pursis is not a withdrawal of vakalatnama as contemplated under Advocates Act or the provisions of Paragraph No. 588 of Civil Manual as raised by the High Court. The advocate had not withdrawn his vakalatnama. There was no jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227.

Plaintiff-Appellant obtained a 2015 trial court ex parte decree , based on unrebutted evidence, for possession after Defendant-Respondents failed to appear. Their advocate had submitted a pursis stating he had not been provided instructions despite a 2014 notice by RPAD . The advocate did not seek to withdraw his vakalatnama.

Defendant-Respondents then unsuccessfully argued before the Appellate Court that the trial court should have suo moto served a notice on them to engage another counsel to represent their case and that the advocate had not followed the requisite procedure for withdrawal of Vakalatnama.
The Appellate Court noted Defendant-Respondents did not reply as to whether they had received their advocates’ 2014 notice.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Indian Registration Act, 1908§ 17(1)(e); Specific Relief Act 1963§§28 RAJESWARI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) vs SHANMUGAM & ANR. ...
25/11/2025

Indian Registration Act, 1908§ 17(1)(e); Specific Relief Act 1963§§28

RAJESWARI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) vs SHANMUGAM & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No.13835 OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 3532 of 2018) Leave granted .Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment upheld. Nov.19 2025. JUDGMENT

Did the deed assigning a decree of specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, require registration under Indian Registration Act, 1908§ 17(1)(e)?

No. A decree for specific performance is an equitable relief. The contract between the parties is not extinguished. (Specific Relief Act 1963§28) It recognizes a claim for enforcement but does not itself create any interest, right, or title in the property in favor of the decree-holder until the sale deed is executed and registered by the judgment debtor or by the Court if the debtor fails to execute the sale deed. The assignment deed is valid even without registration and ex*****on cannot be denied on that ground under Indian Registration Act, 1908§ 17(1)(e)

§ 17(1)(e prescribes mandatory registration only for non-testamentary instruments that transfer or assign rights or interests in immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more.

The assignees of an unregistered 1995 assignment of a decree for specific performance sought ex*****on. The judgment-debtors’ legal heirs objected on the ground that the assignment was unregistered and therefore unenforceable
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462

Address

Mumbai

Website

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557571231462&sk=about

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when NRI-Probate & Intestacy posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category