citedby: 1108930

Smt Satwanti vs Smt.Om Pati on 20 November, 2019

In Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur30 the Apex Court held that where some of the natural heirs were disinherited, legatees did not say anything about the will and there were doubts as to executant, the will may be said to have been made under suspicious circumstances.

Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madan Mohan Seth vs State on 16 February, 2012

36. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied that the Will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act'1925 but it should also be found that the said Will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstances, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicious circumstances as held in case titled, Gurdial Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others, 1998(4) SCC 384.

Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aruna Chhibber Alias Aruna Nitin ... vs Rajnesh Pathak on 16 April, 2026

42. There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down in Gurdial Kaur And Ors. vs Kartar Kaur And Ors. (supra), that the burden is upon the propounder to remove the suspicious circumstances, which has been discharged in the present case.

Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Madhu Sudan Dhawan vs The State on 24 May, 2014

57. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied whenever there is any suspicious circumstances, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicious circumstances as held in case titled, Gurdial Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others, 1998(4) SCC 384.

Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hansraj vs State on 30 August, 2012

52. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied whenever there is any suspicious circumstances, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicious circumstances as held in case titled, Gurdial Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others, 1998(4) SCC 384.

Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satbir Singh Rana vs State on 31 May, 2013

47. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied that the Will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act'1925 but it should also be found that the said Will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstances, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicious circumstances as held in case titled, Gurdial Kaur & PC No.41/09 Page 28 of 32 Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others, 1998(4) SCC 384.

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurdip Kaur vs Gurdev Kaur & Ors on 5 August, 2015

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Election Tribunal to dispose of the election petition No.88/19.7.2013 titled as "Gurdip Kaur versus "Gurdev Kaur and others" filed by the petitioner expeditiously by giving short adjournments.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

Smt. Vidhya Devi vs . State & Others on 4 April, 2008

In the cases cited by counsel for the respondents titled as Gurdial Kaur vs. Kartar Kaur AIR 1998 SC 2861 and Ram Piari vs. Bhagwant AIR 1990 SC 1742 there were no reasons why other close legal heirs of the same degree were excluded and why the estate was bequeathed to a particular legal heir so the Will in those cases were not relied upon but here in the present case, justification and explanation of exclusion of respondents is available and sound so the case laws cited by counsel for respondents can be distinguished from the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Savitri Devi vs The State on 21 May, 2014

19. There are other judgments on the issues that all the doubts are required to be removed by propounder and he has to explain the suspicious circumstances to the complete satisfaction of the court. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Indu Bala Bose & others Vs. Manindra Chandra Bose & another, 1982 (1) SCC 20; Gurdian Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others 1998 (4) SCC 384 and Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane Vs. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar, 1995 (5) SCC 215.

Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Gupta Bahadur vs The State on 3 November, 2011

In the case of Gurdial Kaur Vs. Kartar Kaur, AIR 1998 SC 2861, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results