Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Ganesan (D) Th:Lrs. vs Kalanjiam . on 11 July, 2019

Sarojini (Died) vs Kamala (Dies) on 5 February, 2020

DW-2 also filed the birth certificate and school records (Ex. D10-12) to prove that the second plaintiff and herself are the children of the testator. The contention that DW-2 was in the court hall when the evidence of DW 1 http://www.judis.nic.in 6 of 22 T.O.S.No.40 of 2001 and PW 2 was recorded and that, therefore, she is not entitled to adduce evidence is not correct because DW-2 was not examined as a witness by the plaintiff. Eventually, the learned counsel concluded his submissions by stating that, in testamentary matters, the principal issue is with regard to proof of the execution of the Will and not title or marriage. Once execution is proved by examining attesting witnesses, the Will stands proved as held in Ganesan v. Kalanjiam, 2019 (6) CTC 85 and in the judgment reported in 2019 (5) CTC 125. On the above basis, he prayed that the suit should be decreed.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Defendant vs Smt. Charubala Ghosh on 28 April, 2022

In the context of the controversy centering round the Will and the finding of the learned trial Judge as enumerated here-in-above, I may gainfully refer the case of Ganesan (Dead) v. Kalanjiam and Ors, 2020 (11) SCC 715, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 63 (c) of the Succession Act in the manner as under: [SCC pp. 716, 717, paras 5, 6, 7] "5. The appeals raise a pure question of law with regard to the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Act. The signature of the testator on the will is undisputed. Section 63(c) of the Succession Act requires an acknowledgment of execution by the testator followed by the attestation of the will in his presence. The provision gives certain alternatives and it is sufficient if conformity to one of the alternatives is proved. The acknowledgment may assume the form of express words or conduct or both, provided they unequivocally prove an acknowledgment on part of the testator. Where a testator asks a person to attest his will, it is a reasonable inference that he was admitting that the will had been executed by him.
Tripura High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

S Venkataswamy Reddy vs Nil on 10 January, 2020

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant also argues that the testator's brothers, who have been examined as PWs.2 and 3, have spoken about their relationship with the testator and they have categorically stated that the testator has executed the Will and each of them have thereafter attested the Will. The learned counsel submits that this evidence would suffice insofar as the requirements under Section 63 of the Succession Act, and relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GANESAN (D) THROUGH L.RS VS. KALANJIAM AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.5901-5902/2009 disposed of on 11.7.2009 to contend that it would be sufficient if the requisites as required under Section 63 of the Succession Act are proved by anyone of the alternatives provided therein. The acknowledgment by the testator as required -7- under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act that he has signed the Will dated 20.1.1997 may assume the form of express words or conduct or both provided they unequivocally prove acknowledgement on the part of the testator.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Unknown vs Dr. Sudha Sinha on 10 March, 2022

B. Ganesan v. Kalanjiam, (2020) 11 SCC 715 "The appeals raise a pure question of law with regard to the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Act. The signature of the testator on the will is undisputed. Section 63(c) of the Succession Act requires an acknowledgment of execution by the testator followed by the attestation of the will in his presence. The provision gives certain alternatives and it is sufficient if conformity to one of the alternatives is proved. The acknowledgment may assume the form of express words or conduct or both, provided they unequivocally prove an acknowledgment on part of the testator. Where a testator asks a person to attest his will, it is a reasonable inference that he was admitting that the will had been executed by him. There is no express prescription in the statute that the testator must necessarily sign the will in presence of the attesting witnesses only or that the two attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the will simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other and the testator. Both the attesting witnesses deposed that the testator came to them individually with his own signed will, read it out to them after which they attested the will".
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G K Choudhary - Full Document

Mrs Niraja Sharma vs Kamla on 8 January, 2025

33.In judgment titled as 'Ganesan vs. Kalanjiam' dated 11.07.2019 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed that where a testator asks a person to attest his Will, it is a reasonable inference that he was admitting that the Will had been executed by him, and in this regard, section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 duly mentions the following expression i.e. 'the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom... has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark'.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next