Skip to content


In Re: Vittal Doss and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad360
AppellantIn Re: Vittal Doss and anr.
Excerpt:
succession act - act x of 1865, section 182--executor, appointment of, by implication--administration with will annexed. - .....as executor according to the tenor of the will. the case there mentioned does not bear out the proposition for which it is cited. in that case there was a direction that the person named should collect the testator's estate and pay all just debts, in other words, that he should discharge the function of executor. that therefore is a totally different case from the present. on the other hand, when the testator left all his property and effects to his wife without giving any further directions, the court held in the goods of thomas henry oliphant (1 sw. & tr., 525) in accordance with the practice, which had actually prevailed, that the wife was entitled to administer with the will annexed and not to probate.
Judgment:

Shephard, J.

1. I do not think that the language used in this will is such that Krisan Doss can be said to be constructively appointed executor. My attention was called to the decision In the goods of Badhika Mohan Sett 7 B.L.R., 563 in which the words of the will being somewhat similar the opinion was expressed that probate might be granted to the applicant as executor according to the tenor of the will. The case there mentioned does not bear out the proposition for which it is cited. In that case there was a direction that the person named should collect the testator's estate and pay all just debts, in other words, that he should discharge the function of executor. That therefore is a totally different case from the present. On the other hand, when the testator left all his property and effects to his wife without giving any further directions, the Court held In the goods of Thomas Henry Oliphant (1 Sw. & Tr., 525) in accordance with the practice, which had actually prevailed, that the wife was entitled to administer with the will annexed and not to probate.


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