Obtaining probate of will is not necessary in the State of Rajasthan.

Reliance in this connection has been placed on decision of this Court Sultan Singh Vs. Brij Raj Singh, 1997 (1) WLC 368 (Raj.) Mst. Jadav Vs. Ram Swarup, 1960 RLW 685. In the State of Rajasthan probate was not required to be obtained for the will, as held by this Court in Smt. Roopa Bai and Ors. v. Hukum Singh RLR 1987(1) 550 : 1987 RLW 411 Section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 creates a bar on the establishment of any right under will by any executor or a legatee unless probate or letters of dministration of the will have been obtained, whether that right is claimed by the person as a plaintiff or defendant. AIR 1962 SC 1471 CIVIL PRACTICE---Proving a document?---Mere production of a certificate will not establis as proved---The writer is to be produced---If it is issued under any rovision of law, rule -law then some presumption can be made---The certificate produced does not bear andespatch number---Signature put on it are not proved---Thus the certificate submitted prove the alibi is of no use.Govind Singh and Ors. Vs. Man Singh and Ors., 1998(2) DNJ (Raj.) 519 EVIDENCE ACT, 1872---Section 114---Documents signed by party---There is a presumpt that party has read and understood the document properly---presumption is strong in cas businessmen---Judgment is set aside and case remanded to High Court.When a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, other no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (stheir money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation of force or fraud in this case. He it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex.D-8 bears signatures that it was signed under some mistake. We cannot agree with the view of the High Court on question. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court remand the matter to the High Court for expeditious disposal in accordance with law.Grasim Industries Ltd. (M/s.) and Anr. Vs. M/s. Agarwal Steel, 2010(1) DNJ (SC) 202 EVIDENCE ACT, 1872---Section 90---Presumption of 30 years old document--Whether available---Will executed in 1969 and dispute took place in 1969---Held, Provision is attracted since 30 years have not completed. Kanhaiyalal Thro' LRs. Vs. Nanagram Thro' LRs., 2010(1) DNJ (Raj.) 1 /kkjk 90&30 o"kZ iqjkuk nLrkost gksus dh mi/kkj.kk&D;k miyc/k gS&olh;r 1969 esa fu"ikfnr gqbZ vkSj fookn 196 iSnk gqvk&fuf.kZr] izko/kku vkdf"kZr ugha gksrk D;ksafd 30 o"kZ iw.kZ ugha gq,sA EVIDENCE ACT, 1872---Section 80---Evidentiary value of entries in record of rights--Entries raises a presumption of possession but can be rebutted by adducing the evidence---It is open for the Court to come to a conclusion regarding correctness of the entries. Mahant Ram Khilawan Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007-08 (Suppl.) DNJ (SC) 118 By virtue of Section 140 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act a presumption of correctness arises in favour of such entries AIR 1978 Raj 45, 1977 WLN 634 AIR 1984 Raj 55, 1983 WLN 117 1979 WLN UC 468 In the absence of any substantive provision of law limiting the life of any power of attorney to be a period of three years, registration of such instrument without limiting the period of life of power of attorney is declared to be opposed to public policy. The classification between the document in which the period for the exercise of the power is limited to a period of 3 years, has no relation to the object to be achieved and, therefore, is void and unreasonable. 2001 (1) WLC 433, 2001 (1) WLN 226 Basant Nahata vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 28 November, 2000 Confermed in State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005 Appeal (civil) 7800 of 2001 by Supreme Court of India. (JT 2005 (8) SC 171) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - `Stop Payment' - After issuance of a cheque, subsequent notice by drawer to the drawee or the Bank for stoppage of payment does not preclude action under S.138 by the drawee or holder in due course. 1996(1) Civil CC 309 (SC) : 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 99 (S.C.) & 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 555 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - 30 days - Use of words in the provision is 'within' and not 'from' - Intimation from bank received on 3.12.2003 and notice issued on 2.1.2004 - Held, notice was issued on 31st day and not within 30 days from

the date of receipt of intimation from bank - Complaint not maintainable. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.) Shivakumar vs. Natarajan Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Section 138 - Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 114 - General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), Section 27 - Service of notice - Presumption as to - Held, no material difference between two provisions, viz, Section 114 of Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clauses Act - When notice, sent by registered post by correctly addressing drawer of cheque, mandatory statutory requirement of issue of notice, stands complied with - At time of taking cognisance of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Court, required to be prima facie satisfied that case under said Section, made out - Drawer, to rebut presumption about service of notice. C. C. Alavi Haji. V Palapetty Muhammed and Another Case Number(s) : Crl.A.No. 767 of 2007 2007(2) Apex Court Judgments 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) Criminal Court Cases 037 (S.C.) JT 2007( 7 ) SC 498, 2007 CRI. L. J. 3214 General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) - S. 27 Presumption of service Letter sent by Regd. A. D. Complainant denied receipt of same It was responsibility of complainant to prove by adducing evidence of official of Post Office, that the said letter had not been delivered to him. AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 69 Dishonour of cheque Notice Change of residential address of accused Not communicated by him to complainant or postal authorities Postman returned notice with endorsement house of addressee found locked There is constructive notice Accused cannot escape prosecution with plea of want of statutory notice. general clauses Act (10 of 1897), S. 27 2010 CRI. L. J. 3732 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950---Article 227---Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956--Sec. 75 Land revenue and tenancy---Mutation---Tehsildar made Mutation in favour of respondent on basis of Will executed by his father 'N'---Petitioner filed appeal before SDO against order of Tehsildar---SDO came to conclusion that Tehsildar erred in entering Mutation in favour of respondent without hearing other LR's of deceased---SDO remanded matter to Tehsildar to decide issue afresh after hearing all LR's of deceased---Respondent filed appeal against order of SDO before Addl. Divisional Commissioner which was rejected---Board of Revenue accepted revision and held that there was no need to hear other LR's of deceased--Board of Revenue was not just in its view---Order of Board of Revenue set aside and order passed by SDO restored. Gavra Devi (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors., 2008(1) DNJ (Raj.) 85 vuqPNsn 227&jktLFkku Hkw -jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956&/kkjk 75&Hkw-jktLo rFkk dk'rdkjh&ukekUrj.k&rglhynkj us izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa] mlds firk ^u* ds }kjk fu"ikfnr olh;r ds vk/kkj ij ukekUrj fd;k&izkFkhZ us rglhynkj ds vkns'k ds fo:) mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy nk;j dh&mi[k.M vf/kdkjh bl fu"d"kZ ij igq apk fd rglhynkj us] e`rd ds vU; fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks lwus fcuk] izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa ukekUrj.k djds xyfr dh&mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us ekeys dks rglhynkj ds ikl e`rd ds lHkh fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks lqudj u;s fljs ls fookn dk fofuf'p;u djus gsrq ykSVk;k&izR;FkhZ us mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fo:) vij laHkkxh; vk;q ds le{k vihy dh ftls vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k&jktLo cksMZ us fuxjkuh Lohdkj dj yh rFkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd e`rd ds vU; fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks lquus dh t:jr ugha Fkh&fuf.kZr] jktLo cksMZ dk n`f"Vdks.k Bhd ugha Fkk&jktLo cksMZ dk vkns'k vikLr fd;k rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k iqu% LFkkfir fd;kA