Skip to content


Arumugam Pillai Vs. Arunachallam Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad254
AppellantArumugam Pillai
RespondentArunachallam Pillai
Excerpt:
registration of wills after death of testator - inquiry by registering officer into disability of testator--indian registration act, sectios 35, 40, 41. - .....for the registrar refusing registration, we agree in the conclusion arrived at by the judge. a clear distinction is made in section 41 of the registration act between the case of a will presented by the testator himself, and that of a will presented by any other person entitled to do so. in the former case the rules laid down in section 35 are made applicable, but in the latter case special rules are given. in these special rules no provision is made for an enquiry as to the testator's minority or sanity, for which enquiry provison is made in the rules in section 35. it would not be reasonable to bold that the special rules (a), (b) and (c) of section 41 are merely supplemental to the rules in section 35, because at least in one instance the same; rule in substance appears in both.....
Judgment:

1. The bar of limitation could not avail if the plaint was. originally presented in the proper Court, and we consider that it was so presented in that the Munsif had jurisdiction. On this ground, but not on the grounds given by the Judge, we hold that the suit was not time-barred.

2. With regard to the question whether the alleged minority of the testator was a valid reason for the Registrar refusing registration, we agree in the conclusion arrived at by the Judge. A clear distinction is made in Section 41 of the Registration Act between the case of a will presented by the testator himself, and that of a will presented by any other person entitled to do so. In the former case the rules laid down in Section 35 are made applicable, but in the latter case special rules are given. In these special rules no provision is made for an enquiry as to the testator's minority or sanity, for which enquiry provison is made in the rules in Section 35. It would not be reasonable to bold that the special rules (a), (b) and (c) of Section 41 are merely supplemental to the rules in Section 35, because at least in one instance the same; rule in substance appears in both Sections. The second appeal, therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //