Section 1700 Subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, persons shall dispose of any property. Acting in
effect during life. Or when dead There is no requirement for the beneficiary to
transfer the property. There must be a person other than the beneficiary. For
those who will receive the property is strictly prohibited. In case of
violation of transfer regulations.
The person who is designated
as such must be able to have the right. At the time of disposal of the property
is mandatory.
If not, the person who will be
the receiver of the property when the violation is not transferred. The
provisions of the transfer is not without.
Section 1701. The provisions
of the preceding provisions of this Section shall not apply to the term or life
of the beneficiary.
If no time has been set. In
case the beneficiary is a natural person. It is assumed that the terms of the
transfer are not valid for the lifetime of the beneficiary. In case the
beneficiary is a juristic person. To be only thirty years.
If the time has not been
transferred. It is not over thirty years. If it is longer than that. It is
reduced to thirty years.
Section 1702 prohibits the
transfer of movable property which can not be registered. It is not.
The provisions on the
prohibition of transfer of immovable property or immovable property relating to
immovable property shall be insufficient unless it is made in writing and
registered for non-transfer to the competent official.
The provisions in the
preceding paragraph. For vessels with a tonnage of five tons or more. Both
rafts and animals.
Section 1703. Wills which are
not full fifteen years old shall be null and void.
Section 1704 of the will which
the person who was ordered by the court to make an incompetent shall be null
and void.
The will of the person who was
claimed to be insane. But the court has not yet ordered an adjudicator to do
so. But when it proves that at the time of the testament, the operator is.
Section 1705 Wills or Wills If
it is contrary to the provisions of Section 1652, 1653, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1660,
1661 or 1663, it is null and void.
Section 1706. Wills
testamentary.
(1) If the testamentary is
established, provided that: The beneficiary shall distribute his property by
will to the testator. Or to outsiders.
(2) If the person who can not
be identified is a testamentary person. However, the testamentary deed will be
specific. It can be determined by having one person select multiple people. Or
from one of the other groups. The testator is specified.
(3) If the property provided
by the will is clearly not disclosed, it can not be known. Or if one of them is
determined by how much?
Section 1707 if the
testamentary wording of the testamentary testamentary is provided that the
testamentary shall dispose of the testamentary property to another person. The
condition is not.
Section 1708 when the testator
dies. Any one interested party will request the court to revoke the will which
was made for the purpose of bullying. If the testator survives more than one
year after the testamentary survives There will be no such request.
Section 1709 when the testator
dies. Any one interested party will request the court to revoke the will. Have
made a mistake or scam. When the importance or mischief is small. If it is not
so important or fraud, then the will is not done.
The provisions in the
preceding paragraph shall apply even if such fraud is alleged. A person who is
not a beneficiary of a will.
The testament which has been
made by mistake or scam is in effect. When the testator does not withdraw the
testament within a year from the knowledge of the importance or fraud.
Section 1710 of the lawsuit
against the will. Do not sue after this deadline.
(1) Three months after the
death of the testator. In case the plaintiff knows the reason for the request
to withdraw. During which the testator lives?
(2) Three months after the
plaintiff has reasonably known otherwise.
If the plaintiff does not know
that there are requirements to wound his wounded interest. Although the
plaintiff will know the reason for the request to withdraw it. The three months
to start counting, while the plaintiff knows or should know that the will.
However, No such lawsuit shall
be instituted after the death of ten years after the death of the deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3444/2559.
In this case, the Court of
First Instance ruled that the plaintiff did not sign the power of attorney has
not filled out the message to the defendant that the second defendant falsified
the power of attorney without the serious negligence of the plaintiff. The
second defendant did not dispute the decision of the Court of First Instance
that the defendant falsified the plaintiff's power of attorney and then used to
register the sale of land disputes to the defendant by mistake and the
defendant did not dispute the court. To withdraw the registration of land
transactions between the defendant and the plaintiff, it would cause the
result. Land Dispute Resolution by Copy of Land Sale Contract The land is not
binding contract parties, that is, the defendant can not claim that he owns land
dispute on behalf of the plaintiff since March 23, 1998, which is the contract
date. The plaintiff is still a land dispute. When the defendant did not own a
land dispute and no ownership of the land dispute from the beginning. The
defendant's third mortgage land disputes from the defendant in two days, the
next day is March 25, 2541, so it is not the mortgage from the owner at that
time. Violation of the provisions of Section 705 as follows: the mortgage of
the defendant's land dispute, so that the third defendant to raise the mortgage
to fight the plaintiff's land dispute. Without regard to whether the third
defendant mortgaged land disputes in good faith and pay compensation? The
defendant's first registered mortgage land dispute to the third defendant is
not related to the plaintiff and the defendant is not a representative of the
plaintiff in the mortgage land dispute. The Court of Appeal, Section 3 of the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 822, Section 821, which is a provision on
the liability of the agent and the third party to the case. The plaintiff will
request the revocation of the mortgage law land dispute that the third
defendant has done in good faith. It was not right and when the lawsuit was
heard that the defendant to land the dispute to the third defendant illegally.
Therefore, there is a need to revoke the registration of mortgage land dispute
between the defendant 1 and the third defendant at the Court of Appeal 3, the
judge did not revoke the mortgage law. The Supreme Court disagreed. The
petition of the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2569/2559.
The testament to the fact that
these property let the dead to preserve for the descendants of the successor.
Later, the deceased to make a testament to the petitioner to preserve for the
descendants of the successor. It is a requirement for the will. The dead and
the chorus, respectively. The message in both the will. To preserve the
descendants of the successor. Condition is that the testamentary will sell the
property given by will to another person, Section 1707 shall be deemed not to
be. The testament to the inheritance of the will of the fall is that only one
dead and the deceased will make the property to the sole claimant. The text
that suffix. "To be preserved for the descendants of descendants" is
a condition that does not exist. The opposition has no rights in the estate of
the deceased. Case is considered the objection is not a stakeholder who has the
power to file a petition to withdraw the petitioner from the estate of the deceased
under Section 1727 paragraph one. The Court of Appeal 8 ruled that the will.
Being a beneficiary of the inheritance, it will be heard that the objection is
not a stakeholder who will have the right to request the removal of the
petitioner from being a trustee. It is not a judgment outside of the matter.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1480/2559.
Defendant 2 is the daughter of the
royal family with her husband's lawful legacy, which has already died. Later
inherit the husband and wife with the other three children together with the
plaintiff's land title deed 468 Tambon Sanga Yala District of Yala is the
property of land title deed No. 7890, which is consecutive to the next. On
August 13, 1981, the land was listed for sale after the death. Inheritance of
registration of inheritance of land. The land title deeds No. 468 and No. 113
on the land. The inheritance registered to the second defendant. On September
20, 2002, the estate made a testament to the intent of the property in the
will. Land and house number 113 gives the defendant a second possession of the
inheritance of the great grandchildren have the right to stay as a father. The
sale of this estate to the other defendants and the children of the
inheritance, which occurred with the other three plaintiffs, and the first
defendant, brother to the estate. On November 12, 2002, the estate was dead.
Court of First Instance was the first defendant to the estate on December 25,
2003, the defendant filed a transfer of land title deed No. 7890 to the
defendant in accordance with the will. On October 2, 2012, the defendant No. 2
registered the sale of land title deeds. 468 with house number 113 and land
title deed number 7890 to the third defendant to the land title deed no. 468
and the building number 113 2nd defendant on September 19, 2529, before the
heritage to the death of the 2nd defendant as land ownership deed No. 468 and
No. 113, but has been raised. The inheritance is not owned by the defendant,
but the second defendant is not entitled to land title deed no. 468, home
number 113, which is another person to take the testament to anyone else. The
testament to the fact that raised the house number 113 to the second defendant
who owns the ownership then can not enforce. The land title deed No. 7890, even
if the testament to the defendant's second defendant who is the beneficiary of
the transfer of property. It does not require any person but the beneficiary to
be the recipient of the property to the absolute. The case must be with the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1700, paragraph three, that the transfer is
not prohibited, so that when the inheritance of the will to take land title
deed No. 7890 to the second defendant, then the defendant is the owner of land.
I have the right to dispose of, transfer or any action on the land, the
defendant has the right to transfer the land to the third defendant, the
plaintiff is not entitled to sue. Do not act to revoke the land title deed No.
7890 and No. 113, according to the lawsuit.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15201/2558.
The will not be required for any
person to inherit. Only the trustee will pay the necessary support to the named
person. It does not define the person as a will. It is not clear that it can
not be sure that the property to a large number of people, but the mind of the
petitioner and the objections of the estate manager. It is void under Section
1706 (2) and (3) and is a law relating to public order. The Supreme Court deems
it appropriate to have the power under Section 247 of the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 247, and Section 246, under the provisions of Section 142 (5)
even if the will is invalid under Section 1706 (2) and (3) In part, the legacy
expressed intention to set up the trustee remains intact. It is not void.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8904/2557.
Case of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 193/30 and Section 1710 is not a problem of law
relating to public order that the court will raise its own judgment under
Section 142 (5) The defendant must expressly declare in that statement. When
the plaintiff died. Both must show the reason for the absence of the appearance
of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 177, paragraph two, the defendant
raised the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 and Section
1710 fight without lifting the age of 10 years. Section 1754 of the Court of
Appeal heard the fact that when the plaintiff sued to show that the land and
buildings are not vested in the defendant alone. It is a legacy of the MPs to
be distributed to the heirs. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the death of
August 30, 2001. Plaintiff sued the case on January 26, 2555 sued the plaintiff
sued the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, then the defendant outside
the lawsuit. Prohibited by the Civil Code Section 142 paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12430/2013.
The message under Clause 2 is
about Mrs. A., the plaintiff's agreement with the plaintiff that if the pledgee
sold or sold the land disputes with buildings to others. The contractor will pay
3,000,000 baht to the plaintiff immediately transfer ownership. This means
selling or selling while Mrs. A. is still alive. The debt payment occurs when
the ownership transfer is registered. The agreement can not be interpreted as
meaning that Mrs. A made a will to sell the land to another person for disposal
or sale of the land dispute. For this reason, the text follows the agreement
that specified the transferee, whether he is a heir or a will. Any other person
must pay a full payment of Baht 3,000,000 to the plaintiff is a separate
agreement from the first. This means that the transferee, whether he is a heir
or a will, or any other person, is liable to pay the debt 3,000,0000 to the
plaintiff instead of Mrs. A. As a binding agreement to a third party who is not
the contract. To be liable to the parties, even if the third party does not
agree with it, it will not.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1237/2554.
The plaintiff's appeal. Court
of First Instance judges the plaintiff to win every case, but no judgment in
the land claim that the plaintiff asked the defendant to return to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal to resolve the verdict
of the Court of First Instance by the judge in accordance with the request of
all lawsuits. Appeal against the ruling of the Court of First Instance. Appeal
of the plaintiff is a lawsuit. The plaintiff's lawsuit narrative on both
testimony. The testimony of the two defendants was jointly forged by the will
test dated March 2, 2002. The will was withdrawn by a will test dated April 2,
2002, as a lawsuit and lawsuit. The defendant did not understand the condition
of the charge was not struck. The plaintiff's indictment. The prohibition of
filing a petition is a restrictive provision that must be interpreted strictly.
The case of the child's first child refers to a lawful child is prohibited to
sue his own children under Section 1562, as the plaintiff claims. The death of
the signature of the will dated 2 March 2002 by the deceased in the nature of
legal acts, which is the essence of the act is void under Section 156 of the
case, not a lawsuit to withdraw the will. Section 1710 is not subject to the
age of 1710.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11034/2553.
Even the Court of First
Instance sets out just that issue. Do not assume that. Will the will be void?
But the problem of the will is a legal problem of public order. And the
plaintiff described the lawsuit. Witnesses in the testament do not know the
testament to the subject of the testament to a fight. When there is such a fact
in the process of consideration. The court was empowered to raise the issue
that the testament is invalidated by the Civil Code Section 225 paragraph two
of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1656, the first paragraph prescribes
the form of the will. The test taker must have at least two witnesses and the
witness will be required to sign the will of the testator at that time. Therefore,
the testimony of either one or both of the wills. Signature of the will without
seeing the testimony during the testament. But come to sign later. I do not
like the provisions of the law and the will is void immediately in accordance
with Section 1705. Later, after the testimony of the will testify to the
testator and the will to the will. Will testify The testament to the nullity of
the will is a legally permissible testament.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11034/2553.
The court ruled that the issue
was a single issue. Will the will be fake? In addition to claiming that the
will is based on a false will. The plaintiff also filed a lawsuit. The person
who signed the testament was not aware of it while the sworn affidavit was
signed. The will is void, both the claim of the plaintiff is considered a take
out of the will to fight. The will is not applicable. The Court of First
Instance will not determine the dispute. It is a problem of law relating to
public order. Appeal 5 was raised by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
225, paragraph two. Witnesses will testify in the will. But come to sign later.
I do not like the Commercial Code, Section 1656, the first paragraph and the
testament to void under Section 1705 immediately, even after the testimony of
the will testify to the testator and the will to do. Real testament It does not
result in the signing of a will or a testament that is invalidated and then
signed as a legally permissible to make the will.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4397/2553.
The inheritance of the
testament contains the first paragraph. All the inheritance to Mrs. Mon,
Plaintiff and Mrs. Malai, and the second paragraph states that if there is
anyone other than the name listed in the testament, there is no right to the
property of the whole estate. Therefore, even the inheritance will not identify
the heirs. The inheritance was Mr. Chulalongkorn and the defendant 1 clearly.
But the inheritance of the will to sell all their inheritance to her son,
Monday, the plaintiff and Mrs. Malai. It must be considered that the defendant
and his heirs who do not inherit the will. Was cut to inherit the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1608, paragraph three, however, when the facts are
terminated. The testament to the part of Mrs. Chan. And Mrs. Malai is not
enforceable because it conflicts with Section 1653, Section 1705 is complete,
only the testamentary in the plaintiff's share of the inheritance of the
property to be attributed to Mrs. Chan and Mrs. Malai, which is empty. I do not
apply to the legal heirs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1620,
paragraph two, Section 1699.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4698/2552.
The testimony of the city
department, which was not made in front of two witnesses, is a testament to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1658 (1) will be void under Section 1705.
The appointment of the trustee under the court order. The court shall, in its
discretion, take into account the suitability for the benefit of the estate.
Although the petitioner is not a person prohibited to be a trustee under
Section 1718, but the petitioner will invalidate the waiver request to set up
the trustee will make a paranoid to the objections and other heirs to the.
Maintain the interests of the property to the heirs of the estate. The petitioner
is not fit to be a trustee.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4823/2551.
The will of the deceased has the message:
The decease is a testament to whether the deceased died. The property of the
deceased, all those who were present at the time of his death, you are the
brother of the deceased. The testament to this issue is the conditions for the
will. Property 1, the restoration of the relics of Wat Chai Mongkol Article 2
Renovation of a church (Wat Chai Mongkol also) Article 3 if the remainder of
the above two. But how do you manage to do it anyway? It is considered that
there is no one under Section 1707 Wills of the deceased to raise property to
the Lord, so it is not void to enforce the law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2510/2551.
The testament to the
inheritance of all her estate to the defendant in the will. And specify the
type of property that is given, whether real estate, property, including the
claims of the inheritance to the debtor to the defendant. There is a message in
the will. The defendant will raise property or share to anyone when the
inheritance has passed. But I will see it. Such a requirement that the
defendant holds ownership of the property. No inheritance. But that means. When
the inheritance property to the defendant. How will the defendant continue to
raise property or share it with anyone? Will not be the right of the defendant
as it deems appropriate. No, the defendant is to determine all the inheritance
as much as the defendant's heart, the provisions of the will is not invalid
under Section 1706 (3)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2102/2551.
The defendant with the dead
eat my wife husband without marriage. Do not consider whether the property
dispute is Sin Somros. The only thing that matters is whether property is
bought or not. When disputed land is the land that the deceased has inherited
by inheritance and by means of inheritance. It is not the property that the
defendant is included. Disputed land is the property of the deceased alone.
The will of the deceased is
made using the entire typewriter. Will not write a custom written in accordance
with Section 1657, but the testament to the ordinary Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1656, which must be witnessed. Section 1656, paragraph one, stipulates
that the testator must sign. In the presence of at least two witnesses at the
same time, the testimony of witnesses in the dispute will be later witnessed
against the provisions. The will of the dispute will be void under section
1705.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1223/2551.
Major General N. did not sign
the testimony in the military testimony, the issue is only Colonel K. witnessed
only one. Waiver of military disputed by the Civil Code, Section 1656,
paragraph one is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1705, the
third defendant can not rely on military will. Any rights
All will be written as a will.
Wills written in the body of the handwriting. Have a deadline for your
property. The text in handwritten messages must be readable enough to
understand that the person. The will to inherit the estate. The military
testimony of the disputed version is a testament to military service. The death
certificate of the testator is complete. The space will be provided to the
testator, but only the place and date of the year. Wills with the name of the
testator. The testamentary and the will of the testator. If the text is cut out
to the left only the text that generals. The testamentary man writing it is not
meant as a will. The doctrine of the military disputed is not a will.
The provisions of Section
1754, the third defendant raised the claim is the age of the right to claim the
property that they have. The right to be granted as a heir or acquirer. But
this case is that the plaintiff sued the judge that the military testament to the
dispute is invalid, not the right to claim the third defendant is not subject
to the provisions of the age.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
997/2549.
The testimony of the deceased
in accordance with the testimony in the examination room. W.W. confirmed that
while W.Was signed the testimony, the message was published and other people.
Signed in the testament and the testimony before, then the testament to the
testament to the witness. The testimony of the deceased person shall not be
signed in the presence of A. and C. The witness shall be concurrently and A.
and C. shall not sign the affidavit of the deceased person at that time. It
does not comply with the will of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1656,
paragraph one will be invalidated under Section 1705, the petitioner is not a
heir, the beneficiary will have a stake to request management. Legacy of the
deceased
During the dead The deceased
said to the person in the village that the 4th objection was the son of the
deceased. The people in the village knew that the 4th protester was the son of
the deceased. The deceased expressed his father's foster care, the fourth
objection, with the deceased and sent for alimony, except when the deceased was
confined to the deceased's father. The fourth person's objection and the fourth
objection to foster care. The circumstance of the deceased is to the fourth
objection. It is commonly known that the objections 4 is the illegitimate child
of the deceased person. The fourth objection is the same as the lawful son of
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627 is the death of one of the dead. It
is possible to file a petition for the mother of the 4th objection to be the
estate manager of the deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3552/2550.
The estate was ordered by the
court to be an incompetent from September 20, 1989. Later, the Court of Appeal
ruled in favor of the Court of First Instance to revoke the order for the
inheritance. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petition. As a result,
Mon. still remains incompetent. Even during the case has not reached the Court
of First Instance has ordered that the e. Is a quasi-incompetent. The order
that the e. Quasi-quasi-incompetent, it can not change. Withdrawal or
nullification of the original court order that the court ordered the applicant
to be an incompetent person. It has no effect on the status of an incompetent
person under court order. By the consent of the guardian, the testimony of the
city council written on March 30, 1992, at the time of the admission of the
will was null and void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1704.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3381/2549.
The testament to Article 2 is
the requirement to raise the land to the petitioner by the land to manage it in
any way to bring benefits and benefits to the founding of the foundation to set
up the ownership of the land to the recipient. Wills Only the beneficiaries
will benefit from the land. This will be the case after the inheritance of the
will. And the inheritance is already beneficial. This requirement is not
invalid under Section 1706 (3)
Will Article 3 stipulate that:
Cash deposited at all banks is provided to MPs and petitioners for the purposes
specified. The petitioner and MP are only the moderators. I do not own the cash
to the petitioner and MPs, and it is not clear that the cash to a large number
of people, it is void under Section 1706 (2) (3 )
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3045/2548.
The inheritance did not inform
the message that it wished to be included in its testimony in the presence of
witnesses. Two people simultaneously The testament to the city will be void
under Section 1705.
A and A. Not to sign a witness
at the same time as the testament to which the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1656, paragraph one, that the testator must sign in front of two
witnesses simultaneously, two witnesses. The signature of the testator at the
time of the testament is not to be made in accordance with the form prescribed
by the law. It is void under section 1705.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4001/2545.
The testament is to use Garuda
branded paper and the text is typewritten. Handwriting only the house number,
date, month, year of the two inheritances. And a list of testamentary The
signature and fingerprints of the two inheritance. When it appears that the
testament has made a letter dated the month while doing. The testator signs and
fingerprints in front of two witnesses simultaneously. And the witness signed
the complete signature of the testimony in accordance with the provisions of
Section 1656.
The testator does not specify
the descendant who was cut off the inheritance, but when the inheritance legacy
sold all legacy. The heir apparent who is not benefited from the will is cut
off to inherit.
The spouse of the inheritor of
the will testify on behalf of the testimony of the inheritance will not be able
to inherit the will. There is no law in the testament to M, but there is no law
forbidding the court to listen to the testimony of T. and A. are any witnesses.
The will of the petitioner remains in full force.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3979/2545.
Section 1656 of the first
paragraph requires the testator to sign in front of at least two witnesses. The
two witnesses must sign the testamentary signature of the testator at that
time. When the testimony is not witnessed in one testament, the witness does
not certify the signature of the deceased person. The will is not done in the
manner prescribed by law. It is void according to Section 1705 of the estate of
the deceased, so the descendants are the heirs of the deceased, as did not do
the will. The petitioner has no power to request the court to set himself as
the estate of the deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4693/2545.
The appointment of an expert
to verify the signature in the Civil Procedure Code Section 130 requires the
expert to give verbal or written comments. Depending on the court. When the
police lieutenant Make sure you check the signature of the dead person in the
book. The comment that the signature is not fixed can not be commented on like
this. The testimony of another report is not useful for the decision. The truth
of the case. The Court of First Instance does not allow the appellant to file
additional witnesses. It is legal to do so.
Court of First Instance sets
dispute The will of the deceased is a false testament. The testament to false
testament made entirely by fraud. The testament to false pretenses is not a
will. The testament made by fraud is valid as a testament. However, it may be
revoked by the court when a stakeholder requests it. The will is dead. In
addition, the wills made by scammers are enforceable. When the testator does
not revoke the will within 1 year from the date of knowing the fraud under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1709. Therefore, the issue of whether the
will of the deceased is a false testament. It does not include fraudulent
deception to deceive the deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3776/2545.
Wills with two signatures. The
date of the testament is not considered to be a testament to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1656 will void under Section 1705.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1097/2544.
The testamentary document of
the city must follow the form prescribed by the law. Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1658, which states: "(1) The testator must give notice of the
message he wishes to include in his will. (2) The Department of the District
must take note of the information that the testamentary informs. The fact is
that in the testament, only the MPs enter the house to do the testament to the
court, as the case has been filed. By the way, I do not know what to do. Sign
in at the restaurant, even on the last page of the will. District bailiff to
replace sheriff Make sure it is a note taker. The fact is it appears that the
person who wrote the text is S. Although it is said that the deputy district
minister in charge of the sheriff ordered the MP to help write the message. But
as soon as the note is written, at least two witnesses will not testify before
the testimony. This is contrary to Section 1658 and void under Section 1705.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3566 - 3567/2542.
The deceased made a testament
to the land plots 1, 3, 3, land 3 and land plots 4, which is a land title deeds
to both plaintiffs and Mrs. wife died in the land plot 2. Land Nos 3 is for
sale to be used for funeral dead. The testament to this is not dated the year
is not accurate according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1656. The
will is void under Section 1705, but even the will. Mrs. E. has the right to
land as a spouse under Section 1625 and 1635 (2)
The plaintiffs both occupy
1st, 3rd and 4th plots of land together with Mrs. Monk. The land is considered
as their own will. And both plaintiffs have possession of land plots 2, which
is considered as her own, because the plaintiff because the plaintiff paid for
the funeral of the mum, although the will of her will be null and void. . It is
not complete because it was not written and registered with the competent
official. The land of the plaintiffs is both the possession of the intention to
hold the plaintiff's property, so the two plaintiffs have possession of the
dispute at the 1st and 3rd plots of land with the right to occupy the plot 2,
Section 1367 of the plots of land plot 4, both plaintiffs have occupied with
Mrs. Moncler, calm and openly with the intention of ownership for more than 10
years, both plaintiffs. The ownership of such land under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1382, as part of the will.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6855/2541.
Section 31 of the Land Code It
is intended that the land title holder has land. The descendants or descendants
have the right to inherit the law and to protect. The land has been transferred
to other people easily that the land is divided into 44263 and 42264 to the
defendant. However, the land can not be transferred to the defendant under the
contract. The land title deed no. 42263 has no provisions to transfer within 10
years under the Land Code Section 31, so the defendant can not apply for a
permit to set up a school. So do the land title deeds No. 42263 and 42264 to
the defendant by land. Sold to the defendant by the money. Land from the
defendant. Later, the defendant to the land lease agreement is 10 years by the
book and registered with the competent authority until the defendant is
allowed. School in the land. This circumstance shows that the defendant and the
defendant deliberately avoided the prohibitions of transfer. Land Code Section
31, paragraph one, when the defendant witnessed. Wills will be the testament to
the ownership of the land as evidence. Applying for a school permit The show of
dishonesty of the defendant. It is considered that the land title deed no.
42263 to the defendant by the will is intended to violate the law would fall.
Void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150.
The plaintiff sued the land
title deed no. 42263 and 42264 returned from the defendant when the will
testament in the land title deed No. 42263 was not effective because it was
void. The defendant is not a heir and the will of the deceased is cited as the
age of inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 and 1755
to fight the plaintiff is not a legal heir. The plaintiff did not sue for the
revocation of the will testament. Acted by mistake, fraud or intimidation, as
provided in sections 1708 and 1709, is not subject to the age requirement under
section 1710.
The defendant has the right to
transfer the land title deed no. 42264 as the testimony of the plaintiff, who
did not benefit from the testament, is the right. Not to inherit the land under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1608 paragraph last.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4639/2540.
When the will is required, all
the property of the deceased shall be administered by the person Asset
management donates the property to any charitable organization, but the estate
manager will deem it obvious and know for sure. All property of the deceased
must be donated to the charity only. The will is not void. According to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1706 (3), and when the deceased to do the
will to raise all the property to the charitable organization must hold. The
objection of the two, the heirs of the deceased, is forbidden to inherit the
deceased under Section 1608. The two endorsers are not interested in the
inheritance of the deceased. There is no right to request the removal of the
petitioner as a trustee under Section 1727 or to request that the second
trustee be appointed as trustee under Section 1713.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3579/2540.
The court ruled that The
testament to the dispute is that the place of the testament is not true, the
date of the year specified in the testament is suspected, the deceased has
signed the will. The witness was not there at that time. The testament to the
provisions of Section 1656 paragraph one of the Civil and Commercial Code, the
testament to void under Section 1705, the defendant did not appeal. The fact is
terminated by the Court of First Instance that the deceased person did not
sign. The testimony of the testimony before the Court of Appeal. The testament
to the dispute is void or not a diagnosis, it is not like. The defendant has no
right to petition in this issue later. The Supreme Court does not recognize
The deceased has signed the
will while he is hospitalized and the deceased. The consciousness is complete
and has been signed consciously. The deceased saw the will and knew that it was
a sign of the will. Wills indicate location does not match the actual location.
The date of the testament does not correspond to the date of the actual year.
The message appears when the dead sign. Even the defendant will be prepared to
hold that it is not a forgery. And the signature of the deceased can not be
held that the defendant cheat to make a will. The defendants were not
eliminated by the inheritance lawsuit.
The plaintiff sued the
mortgagee. The Court of Appeals has ordered the revocation of the mortgagor's
injunctive relief. This is not the case in the case of prohibited under Section
145 of the Act.
Defendants are the legatees of
the deceased by the court order. Even the defendant will transfer their land
and then mortgage it to a third party as a transfer. Will the defendant
understand that complete. And it does not appear that the defendant is acting
improperly as a trustee or a trustee. Because the defendant will have the right
to manage the inheritance in accordance with Section 1719 of the plaintiff has
no right to prohibit the defendant to interfere with the estate of the
deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1216/2540.
The testamentary witness will
sign the testimony in the presence of three witnesses. The three witnesses will
sign the testimony of the testimony. Must be in accordance with the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1656. Even without the signature of the authors under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1671, but the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1705 is not required to be invalidated, so the will is disputed law. No
law stipulates that if the beneficiary is present at the time of making the
will, it will be effective. The will is void. Sinus Property There are times
when the MPs have the power to raise their own sins to any person. According to
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1481.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
40/2539.
The defendant is not a witness
in the testament that the defendant signed a fingerprint testimony. Wills do
not have a signed testamentary testament. Land testament to the defendant void.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2307/2539.
While the inheritance is
written testament to the estate to the defendant is controlled. I told them to
write the inheritance is not complete, the testament to the loss. No, according
to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1704, paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1905/2538.
The two defendants and their
descendants are the descendants of MPs. When both MPs died and the other heirs
made a letter of consent to the defendant. Later, the defendant entered into a
contract to buy land to sell the land dispute. Both the plaintiff and the
plaintiff, both the claimant and the other heir. The objection is that all
heirs, including both, agree. The defendant entered into a contract and each of
the defendants represented the defendant even when the defendant contracted.
The defendant was not appointed by the court to be a manager. Such a contract
will be binding on both parties to transfer the sale. Land disputes only their
own to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2460/2538.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant to separate and sign the plaintiff in the deed of the estate of the
person. The death of the plaintiff as the estate manager of the deceased
according to the will. Do not sue the heirs request to divide the inheritance
to the heir. Will legate inheritors exist? This is not a dispute in the case.
And even if the testament is intangible, it only results in the The will to
inherit the person named in the will. The requirements for a person to inherit
the inheritance. I have not. When the defendant is the deed of the land. The
plaintiff as the estate manager will be entitled to separate and enter the
name. In the deed as the estate manager of the deceased.
The plaintiff as a trustee
filed for the three defendants handed over the title deed is a lawsuit to
remove the suffering can not calculate the price. The Court of First Instance
set the attorney fees higher than the rate prescribed in Table 6 of the
attorney's fees. The Supreme Court ruled that it was appropriate to revise the
law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6595/2538.
Wills do not date the year in
the testament do not do as prescribed by law. The void under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1705, the inheritance of the deceased is the death of
the heirs of the dead. Will testify When the facts appear. Father of Opposition
1 is the child of the deceased, dies before the deceased. The first objection
is to inherit the property. It is a stakeholder. There is a right to request a
deceased inheritor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1711 and 1713,
so when the court ordered the appointment of the first objection to the estate
of the deceased. The fact is that the owner of the inheritance has made a
legacy of inheritance to the second defendant, but there is no reason for the court
to order the revocation of the first objection to the estate of the deceased
under the Civil Code. And Commercial Section 1727
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5521/2538.
The plaintiff disputes the
land to the defendant by the affair with a verbal agreement that it is
prohibited. Defendant 1 brought the land dispute to sell the following
defendant sold 1,000 disputed land. In 1,064 parts to the second defendant at a
price of 500,000 baht, registered to the second defendant. The ownership of
such land is as follows. Real estate, but the plaintiff did not make a book and
registered with the staff. It also does not determine the person who will be
the recipient of the property when it is. Violation of the terms of the
transfer will not affect the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1700 and
1702, the defendant has the power to sell the land disputes. The defendant 2.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1466/2537.
The will of the petitioner and
the deceased together in a single version, the essence of the will testament
(a) is the case where the petitioner with the deceased. If one of the dead or
the dead. The property of the deceased before the personal property of the
person doing. The will is living solely and exclusively as a righteous person.
Collect, maintain, distribute, or share And raise such property to any person
as the willful living person deems fit under the terms set out in (b), the
applicant and the deceased are intending to raise the property for another One
Which one died before? The only condition for the willer to dispose of the
property. The will to the person as stated in (b). Case that the conditions are
not in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1707. The will of
the deceased to raise property to the claimant is still applicable, not the
case that the living testator will determine the property. To the heirs, much
less according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1706 (3), however, the
applicant and the deceased will do the will. The same They raise their property
to each other. The testament to this has been made a month-long letter while
making up. And the testator shall sign the testimony in the presence of at
least two witnesses. Two witnesses have signed the testimony at the time. The
testament to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1656, although the
petitioner with the deceased will do testament in the same document, it is not
wrong but. It is not a gambling game because it is a show of intent. Her own
inheritance or in any way that would be enforceable by law when either party
dies before the time of Section 1646, the person who will be the author or
witness of the testament, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1671. The
person must sign his or her identity as the author or witness. Therefore, when
the applicant signs as the testator, there is no message as a witness. It will
be treated as a witness in the testament. The will is void because the claimant
will testify in the will.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2460/2538.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant to separate and sign the plaintiff in the deed of the estate of the
person. The death of the plaintiff as the estate manager of the deceased
according to the will. Do not sue the heirs request to divide the inheritance
to the heir. Will legate inheritors exist? This is not a dispute in the case.
And even if the testament is intangible, it only results in the The will to
inherit the person named in the will. The requirements for a person to inherit
the inheritance. I have not. When the defendant is the deed of the land. The
plaintiff as the estate manager will be entitled to separate and enter the
name. In the deed as the estate manager of the deceased.
The plaintiff as a trustee
filed for the three defendants handed over the title deed is a lawsuit to
remove the suffering can not calculate the price. The Court of First Instance
set the attorney fees higher than the rate prescribed in Table 6 of the
attorney's fees. The Supreme Court ruled that it was appropriate to revise the
law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6595/2538.
Wills do not date the year in
the testament do not do as prescribed by law. The void under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1705, the inheritance of the deceased is the death of
the heirs of the dead. Will testify When the facts appear. Father of Opposition
1 is the child of the deceased, dies before the deceased. The first objection
is to inherit the property. It is a stakeholder. There is a right to request a
deceased inheritor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1711 and 1713, so
when the court ordered the appointment of the first objection to the estate of
the deceased. The fact is that the owner of the inheritance has made a legacy
of inheritance to the second defendant, but there is no reason for the court to
order the revocation of the first objection to the estate of the deceased under
the Civil Code. And Commercial Section 1727
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5521/2538.
The plaintiff disputes the
land to the defendant by the affair with a verbal agreement that it is
prohibited. Defendant 1 brought the land dispute to sell the following
defendant sold 1,000 disputed land. In 1,064 parts to the second defendant at a
price of 500,000 baht, registered to the second defendant. The ownership of
such land is as follows. Real estate, but the plaintiff did not make a book and
registered with the staff. It also does not determine the person who will be
the recipient of the property when it is. Violation of the terms of the
transfer will not affect the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1700 and
1702, the defendant has the power to sell the land disputes. The defendant 2.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4338/2531.
The five plaintiffs as the
heirs sued the two defendants, the estate and property management. Legacy to
replace another heir. Divide the inheritance The lawsuit is over 1 year since
the death of her husband. Both defendants will expire under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1754 is not enforceable.
The plaintiff has filed a
complaint to divide the merit made in the inheritance of the third plaintiff
sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit. The four plaintiffs
have previously appealed to the court to revoke the two defendants as the
plaintiff's estate manager. Both defendants and the defendant as a trustee has
sued the plaintiff 5 times out of the land plots. The plaintiffs of the
inheritance are void, so that the plaintiffs 2, 3, 4 and 5, both defendants in
this case, the will of the inheritance is null and void. The inheritance falls,
the heirs are not recaptured.
The will to set black property
to the name. Hold shares in the company Each person has an average number of
shares. The inheritance is also a shareholder in the company. The testament is
that the testamentary will be determined by the list. A shareholder in a
company that is present while the testator is dead. This will be considered by
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1646. Not all void. It appears that the
inheritance is a shareholder in the company. It is equivalent to inheritance to
give property to them. It is not a requirement that the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 1599 and Section 1646, have no effect on inheritance, only the
testamentary part will not be handed down to the heirs.
A will, which has the message
to the trustee and the person. The inheritance shares will be transferred
according to the inheritance of the inheritance to the capital increase of the
company according to the ratio of the existing shares. It is a condition that
the will acquires the property given by the will to another person. According
to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1707 is not deemed to be a condition
without a testamentary do not have to comply with the conditions.
The will to transfer shares in
the inheritance. Enter the name of the trustee. To receive dividends from the
company. To make merit. And support your unnamed children in that company. It
is not a matter of setting up a guardian and not a founding trust. Because the
testator is not a minor or an incompetent person. And no property to the estate
manager. It is a requirement that the property provided by the testament is not
clearly stated. Maybe to know for sure. The inheritance of the inheritor is a
legacy. How much is the mind of the estate manager? This provision is void
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1706 (3)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3293/2525.
The plaintiff sued while
making a testament. The testament to sickness until unconscious. No intention
to make a will. The will is void. The lawsuit has been filed with the will of
the testamentary deceiver was done fraudulently, fraudulently or intimidated.
The age of compliance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1710 is not
enforceable by the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3175/2522.
The testator has made a will
to raise or donate the land together with the building. The inheritance to the
defendant. But there are prohibitions against the defendant to transfer, sell
or dispose of such property. And the income from the property is divided to the
plaintiff and other persons. This type of escrow is characterized by the
ownership of the defendant. Hold or occupy the property instead of the
beneficiary according to the will. The will is not a trust.
The testament to the
defendant's payment to the plaintiff is monthly only. I am in need of help. It
is prohibited to transfer, sell or sell. Which is prohibited by the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1700, so it is equal to the defendant in accordance with
the will. The will to the defendant to pay the plaintiff by the transfer or
disposal of property. No legal effect.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
996/2521.
Wills require that the estate
manager sell the property in cash. And to pay for the funeral of the first. If
there is still money left. Let the manager allocate merit. Or donated to any
institution or place or charitable cause by the trustee, the donation to the
institution or place or charitable cause. It is considered that the merits of
the said message to be limited. Of course, it must be dedicated to charity
only. It will be given to a particular person, or not for the charity of the
estate manager. Specifically, it is a specific institution, institution, or
charitable organization. Therefore, the requirements of the will is considered
to be a person who may know the course is not invalid under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1706 (2)
The testament is that. Let the
manager take the cash left over from the funeral. Granted to the institution or
place or charity for which the trustee deems appropriate. It is not a matter of
how much the inheritance is set by the estate manager. It is not invalid under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1706 (3)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1699/2515.
The monarchy of the monarchy
has legal effect. If you do not have his Majesty's own authority or any other
absolute power, cancel. Revocation of the royal command is still effective.
(Cited above, 681/2481)
The inheritance was made in
1917, and the monarchy of the monarchy was endorsed. The will is as valid as
the will was done by the Emergency Decree. All rights reserved. The judge is
not allowed to file a lawsuit against the property. The inheritance of the
will. The will is governed by applicable law. The will is forever. The court
will judge the relevance of the inheritance of the inheritance. Wills are not
available to the royal command.
The testament to which the
royal commandment has already been given is that the stated land. The
inheritance is always the property of the inheritance, and the caretaker of the
land. It is a residence for relatives who can not find a residence, but the
owner does not own the property if it is necessary to sell or exchange the land
with the wishes of the government. The king gave the manager (inheritance) to
take the money and buy elsewhere. The best way to do this is to do the will.
When the estate manager to sell the land, it is obligatory to bring money to
buy. New to the relatives of the inheritance to live in accordance with the
requirements of the will. The proceeds from the sale of the land will be
distributed to the heirs in order to procure new addresses. I have not found it
because it is equivalent to holding that the heir who received the money is
divided. Ownership of ownership of the land. The land designated as a testament
to the relatives of the family has to dissolve, even with the intention of
dividing the heir to buy new housing itself. Newly purchased land is not
changed for the relatives. But it is the ownership of the heirs of each buyer,
who has the power to destroy the heirs. Or other relatives To live in conflict
with the requirements of the will.
The trustee sells the land as
specified in the will and must take the proceeds of the sale. Buy a place and manage
to meet that desire to find a replacement. The land is sold to which the
trustee is obliged to comply. In the testament, which is still in force, it is
the establishment of a new trust. Now, beyond the requirements of the will. The
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1686, is not applicable to this case.
The message in the testament.
The land designated as relatives of the place. The inheritance is intended to
provide the land for the relatives. The homeless will be used as the next
residence, which means both relatives. In the past, the inheritance passed and
the birth in the future. It is not intended for anyone to own the land. In
order not to conflict with the law on ownership and inheritance and to be
enforceable, the inheritance has made a will to meet the request to the Royal
Command. To be effective all the time, the plaintiff is a great-grandson of the
inheritance, even after birth. The inheritance is gone, then the plaintiff is a
relative who will receive. The benefits of living in the land as prescribed in
the will. The plaintiff has the power to sue the estate manager not to inherit
the will. To treat the plaintiff as a relative who may be damaged. From the
actions of the trustee.
(Diagnosed at the 11-16 / 1972
General Assembly)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
184/2502.
The will is to order the
inheritance to fall, including all the sons. The law prohibits the separation
of this property is not a violation of the law is not enforceable. The owner of
the property is entitled to use. Sell and share the property. The Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1336 and 1363, do not lose the whole.
