NRI-Probate & Intestacy

29/04/2026

CPC 1908 Order XX R.4(2); R.5. CPC 1908§2(9). Essential requirements of a valid ex parte judgment provide the grounds for a decree or order.

PRAMOD SHROFF .. APPELLANT(S) vs MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA …RESPONDENT(S). SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.20779 OF 2025). April 16 2026. Leave granted. Matter remanded . Trial court to frame issues and accord opportunity to the parties to lead evidence for fresh consideration and decision.


Did the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the High court ex parte, fulfil the requirements under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XX R.4(2); R.5?

No. A judgment must have a concise statement of the case; the points for determination; the decision thereon; the reasons for such decision. If issues have been framed in the suit, the court shall state its finding or decision, with reasons, upon each separate issue. The court must ascertain the factual and legal veracity of the Plaintiff’s claims and address every controverted issue.

Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 1977 agreement to sell against Respondent. The suit met the essentials of a specific performance suit for the Plaintiff to prove: a valid contract; breach of contract; readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform. However the trial court dismissed ex parte, for failure to prove title, although Respondent had not framed a title issue. Appellant was not given an opportunity to lead evidence. Omission to frame issues caused prejudice to the Appellant.

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

27/03/2026

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 §11 Res judicata; CPC Order XXIII Rule 1. Abuse of judicial process

SHARADA SANGHI & ORS. … APPELLANTS VS. ASHA AGARWAL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2609 OF 2013 2026 INSC 292 25 March, 2026. Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment upheld for other reasons

Does dismissal of a suit for default by itself, operate as res judicata under CPC 1908 §11?

No. The matter must have been heard and finally decided on the merits.
The appellants won an ex*****on decree in a specific performance suit in 1988 and were seeking possession. However respondents filed an objection under CPC Order XXI Rules 99 to 101 claiming they had purchased the property in 1990 from a different source. The appellants filed suits to cancel the respondents' sale deeds but allowed those suits to be dismissed for default and did not pursue restoration. The dismissal for default did not operate as res judicata.

Did the conduct of the appellants in seeking to reopen the ex*****on issue, after abandoning the earlier suits against respondents and permitting the deeds to attain finality, constitute abuse of judicial process?

Yes. Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and(4) A second suit will not lie when the first suit is withdrawn without permission. The appellants stand precluded to reap the benefit of the decree through ex*****on proceedings.

While appellants’ 1988 specific performance ex*****on suit was pending, the respondents filed a 1990 title claim as bona fide purchases for value from a different vendor. The appellants then instituted separate suits to establish their rights as against the respondents, seeking cancellation of the respondents’ sale deeds. Both suits ultimately came to be dismissed for default.

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

23/03/2026

KISHOREKUMAR MOHAN KALE, APPELLANT(S) vs KASHMIRA KALE RESPONDENT(S) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2013. Bombay High Court Judgment and order dated 4th March 2010 set aside. January 15, 2026

Hindu Marriage Act 1955§13: Grounds for Divorce. Constitution of India Art. 142 :Exercise of Court’s jurisdiction for complete justice.
Code Of Civil Procedure,1908 §13: Foreign judgments not conclusive if judgment not on merits or refusal to recognise Indian law in applicable cases; or judgment obtained is opposed to natural justice.

Can a US permanent resident plead lack of domicile in order to argue lack of US jurisdiction?

Yes. Under 8 U.S. Code § 1255, a non immigrant can adjust status to permanent resident but retain domicile outside the US. The Appellant husband lived and worked in the US for most of the marriage, but claimed domicile in Pune.

Can the Appellant claim Respondent’s divorce pleading defective because her statutory basis was unavailable under HMA§13 and the divorce was obtained ex parte?

Yes , in view of CPC 1908 §13 (My note: The wife could have amended her complaint to base it on cruelty .The husband had been served).

Could the Court exercise its own jurisdiction under Constitution of India Art.142 to grant the divorce on the basis of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and natural justice?

Yes. The parties had been separated since 2008, nearly eighteen years.

(My Note: This is a troubling case. The Respondent was dragged through 18 years. There were no children and no real property. The Appellant had removed the marital funds. How did the Respondent get property relief? I have myself done scores of divorces of Hindus in the US on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and obtained ex parte orders where, as here, there was not much by way of marital property. Also I find the Pune domicile claim laughable. The parties lived in the US for most of the marriage. A few nights in Pune do not make it the domicile.
How would an Indian court resolve issues of marital property in the US, if a marital home, investments were involved?)


The parties, US residents, married in Mumbai in 2005, under the HMA and lived through the marriage in the US except for a few weeks after the marriage and in winter 2007. The Respondent filed for divorce in September 2008 in the US. The Appellant objected by written statement, to the jurisdiction of the US Court and that any divorce would have to be prosecuted in Pune, the parties; domicile, under the HMA.
He filed for divorce in Pune under HMA §13(1)(i)(a), claiming jurisdiction on the ground that the parties' residence at Pune constituted their matrimonial home, as they had resided there during their visits to India.

09/03/2026

Indian Contracts Act 1872 § 133. Discharge of surety

BHAGYALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. …APPELLANT vs BABALDAS AMTHARAM PATEL (D) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO.3200 OF 2016 Appeal allowed. Gujarat High Court order set aside. Feb 27, 2026

Can the surety be bound for the final obligation of the principal-debtor, different from the obligations which the surety initially guaranteed?

No. Under ICA § 133 any variance made without the surety’s consent in the terms of the contract between the principal-debtor and the creditor, discharges the surety as to transactions subsequent to the variance for which the surety has not contracted. The liability of the surety extends only to what contract he guaranteed. He is not liable for the excess amounts permitted to be withdrawn from the cash-credit facility of the appellant-bank by respondent No.6- principal debtor.

Respondent No.6 obtained a cash-credit facility for withdrawal of Rs.4,00,000 as a loan from appellant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 stood as guarantors/sureties for the said loan and executed contracts of guarantee in favour of the appellant.

Appellant alleged Respondent No.6 in connivance with some officers employed by the appellant withdrew amounts in excess of the sanctioned. amount. Respondent No 6 defaulted.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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