ELIZABETH ANTONY Vs. MICHEL CHARLES JOHN CHOWN LENGERA
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on April 12,1990

ELIZABETH ANTONY Appellant
VERSUS
MICHEL CHARLES JOHN CHOWN LENGERA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SWAMI SUPRAKASHANANDA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
NAMITA SINGHA VS. JOYDEB CHANDRA PAUL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
LEENA REGO VS. LAURA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-11-138] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE GOODS OF SMT. PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA (DEED.) KRISHNA KUMARBIRLA AND ORS. VS. REJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2006-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE GOODS OF SMT. PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA (DEED.) KRISHNA KUMARBIRLA AND ORS. VS. REJENDRA SINGH LODHA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2006-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR JUNEJA VS. SURINDER PAL KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV RAMPRASAD GUPTA VS. RUSTOM SAM BOYCE [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
RATNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1999-12-56] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH ASARPOTA VS. JAGDISH DAMODARDAS ASARPOTA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
E SANKARAN VS. KRISHNAVENI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM BHARAT ASARPOTA VS. JAGDISH DAMODARDAS ASARPOTA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-222] [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN NATWARLAL GANATRA VS. ROHAN P SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
GANESHAMMAL VS. V ARUNACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2002-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA VS. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA VS. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM VASUDEV NAGPAL VS. RANI LALCHAND KALRO [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
J.S.RAJKUMAR VS. SHYNA PAUL [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
V K NANDAGOPAL VS. K GUNABHOOSHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2001-12-65] [REFERRED TO.. (PARA 31)]
PRASHANT GOPAL GOKHALE VS. MANASI SHYAMSUNDER KELKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS. NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-137] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SUNDERDAS ASWANI VS. MAHESH KISHINCHAND AIDASANI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-294] [REFERRED TO]
P G GOPAL VS. V MANICKAVELU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
V MURALIDHARAN VS. R RAGHAVENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-1995-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNDAS S O NARAYANDAS PANJWANI VS. VERA MISHRA OF BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1994-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD TULSHAN VS. YASHEEL JAIN [LAWS(CAL)-2007-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
ATALENDU ROY VS. BINA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2008-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
A JAYAVEERAPANDIAN VS. R RENGARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2003-12-227] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - (1.)We have heard both the sides and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.)This petition is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court confirming the order passed by Re the Subordinate Judge; Nilgirls. The matter arises under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('Act' for short) and the facts that gave rise to the petition are as follows:
(3.)The testatrix Mary Aline Browne was the wife of Herbet Evander Browne who was the eldest son of one John Browne. The testatrix had a daughter of the name of Zoe Enid Browne and she died on 8-10-1977. The respondent claiming to be the beneficiary to, the estate of Mary Aline Browne who died on 28-3-1972 under the terms of a Will said to have been executed by her on 12-3-1962 filed an application for letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed in the Sub Court, Nilgiris. The same is numbered as O.P. No. 23 of 1980. Along with the application the respondent also filed an affidavit of an attestor of the Will. In that proceedings, the petitioner and her deceased husband lodged a caveat on the ground that the said Mary Aline Browne did not execute any will and the will propounded by the respondent was a fictitious and forged one, intended to disentitle Zoe Enid Browne, daughter of the testatrix from claiming interest in the estate of her mother. The petitioner also claimed that Zoe Enid Browne executed a Will dated 23-6-75 in favour of the petitioner and that she also. executed a gift-deed in her favour. The petitioner also claimed that she was a trustee of John Browne Trust and that, therefore, the petitioner has caveatable interest. Thus they opposed the probate of the Will. Before the Sub Court, several documents were filed. The respondent herein contested the caveat stating that the petitioner herein has no interest in the estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner is not in any manner related either to Mary Aline Browne or Zoe Enid Browne. The learned single Judge of the High Court in an elaborate order having considered the rival contentions dismissed the Civil Revision Petition holding that the petitioner cannot claim to be a person who has a caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased testatrix Mary Aline Browne. We are told that the Will has subsequently been probated and the letters of administration have been granted.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.