Showing posts from April, 2020

Probate In India: Definition, Importance & Application

  Probate In India: Definition, Importance & Application                        @1                        A will  is a document that is drawn by a person with clear instructions as to how his/her assets are to be distributed on their death. In certain situations — and only in certain jurisdictions, such as Mumbai, Kolkota and Chennai — the executor of the will may need to apply for a probate in order to legalise it. This article will discuss, in detail, what a probate is, when one is needed in India, what the court fees are, and how it can be obtained. @2 What is a Probate? The Indian Succession Act, 1925 decrees that a probate is official proof of a will. A probate is issued to the executor, or the person who is authorized to implement or execute the will and thereby adds a legal character to the will. A probate, as defined in the India Sucessession Act, 1925, is ‘A copy of will certified under the seal of a court of competent jurisdiction with grant of administration of the

Article 21 of constitution of india , fundamental laws.

The following rights are held to be covered under Article 21 @1. The right to go abroad Satiuanl Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramaruthaam -size: 15pt;">. A.O.O., New Delhi. 2. The right to privacy. Gobind v. State of M.P. In this case reliance was placed on the American decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. 3. The right against solitary confinement. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration . 4. The right against bar fetters. Charles Sobrqj v. Supdt. Centraljail . 5. The right to legal aid. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra . 6. The right to speedy trial Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar . 7. The right against handcuffing. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration . @8. The right against delayed execution. T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N . pan> 9. The right against custodial violence. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra . 10. The right against public handing. A.G. of India v. Lachma Devi . 11. Doctor's assistan

Daughters Born Before 2005 Have Equal Rights To Ancestral Property: SC

Daughters Born Before 2005 Have Equal Rights To Ancestral Property: SC @1              The issue of succession equality and rights for women has been extremely important and perhaps controversial in recent times. However, it is very heartening to see that our Indian Courts have continued to adopt a pro-women approach in a number of legal aspects, one of the most important of which is in relation to ancestral properties. I n a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) upheld the right of a daughter to be entitled to an equal share as a son in an ancestral property, including daughters who were born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”) came into force. The judgement was delivered by Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan on February 1st, 2018 in the matter of Danamma v. Amar . Clarifying further, the Bench added that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (“2005 HSA Amendment”) to Section 6 of the HSA makes a daughter a “coparcener” (one who shares

MH CET Law -3 year ,LLB Sample paper 2020.

MH CET LAW -5 YEAR LLB Sample paper 2020

district judge preliminary exam ,question paper.2012


PLEA OF ADVERSE POSSESSION AND POSITION OF LAW UNDER ARTICLES 64 AND 65 OF THE LIMITATION AC @1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND : The concept of adverse possession was born in England around 1275 and was initially created to allow a person to claim right of “seisin” from his ancestry. Many felt that the original law that relied on “seisin” was difficult to establish, and around 1623 a statute of limitation was put into place that allowed for a person in possession of property for twenty years or more to acquire title to that property. The concept of adverse possession was subsequently adopted in the United States. As a result, the time period to acquire land by adverse possession has been reduced in some States to as little as five years, while in others, it has remained as long as forty years. The United States has also changed the traditional doctrine by preventing the use of adverse possession against property held by a governmental entity. During he colonial period, prior to the enactment