Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (6.03 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Malkani vs Jamadar And Ors. on 5 February, 1987

Shri Rajindra Motwani vs State And Others on 31 January, 2014

21. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Malkani vs. Jamadar & Ors., (supra) where it was held that mere presence of a beneficiary at the time of execution of the Will is not sufficient to create a doubt about the testamentary capacity or genuineness of the Will. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - J Nath - Full Document

Sadashiv Mahadeorao Pokle (Since ... vs Mahesh Baban Pokle, Suresh Baban Pokle, ... on 28 February, 2008

14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malkani v. Jamadar, (supra) relied upon by the respondents shows that the inference about any undue influence on the basis of such circumstances can be drawn if facts justified it. It has been observed that taking active part by propounder in execution of Will is not an indication of any suspicious circumstance in all cases. The facts of said case in para 3 reveal that only circumstance brought on record was that beneficiary had taken active part in execution of Will. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that the daughter of testatrix had made a report to Tahsildar about abduction of her mother and about possible procuring of execution of conveyance from her. She then instituted a Civil Suit for declaration of her title against the mother. Mother then executed the will in favour of defendants and thereafter she came and started residing with plaintiff. All these facts have been interpreted to hold that there was no suspicious circumstance on account of prominent part played by the defendants in execution of Will by said mother. It is, therefore, apparent that the inference to be drawn from such circumstance is basically a question of fact. I, therefore, find that none of the circumstances constituted any suspicious circumstance in the matter. The learned appellate Court has considered this aspect and has found that only active role, if any in the actual process of execution of Will, is played by Mukund. Question No. 1, therefore, needs to be answered in the negative.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Joginder Singh Alias Rajinder Singh vs Dharuv Singh on 7 March, 2003

18. The argument that the beneficiary has taken active participation in the execution of the Will which is evident from the factum of his attestation is again without any merit. It has come in evidence that the deceased was living with the beneficiary and it was he who was providing him services. A persual of the statements of scribe and the attesting witness shows that the testator thumb marked the Will in their presence and in the presence of each other including in the presence of Yash Pal Singh, the other attesting witness. Thus, the execution of the Will stands proved. The Will is registered and the same is attested by the Sub-Registrar. The thumb impression of the testator appear at two places at the time of attestation along with the witness on the back page of the Will. Therefore, participation in the execution of the Will by the beneficiary by itself does not create doubt regarding the testamentary capacity of the executor or the genuineness of the Will. Smt. Malkani v. Jamadar and Ors., (1987)1 S.C.C. 610; Lal Singh v. Surjit Singh and Ors., (1972)74 P.L.R. 225 and Sita Ram v. R.D. Gnpta and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 Punjab and Haryana 83 are the few judgments on which the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance to contend that the participation of the beneficiary in the execution of the Will itself cannot throw doubt on its genuineness. It is only a circumstance which is required to be considered.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - H Gupta - Full Document

B.Narayanapa, vs B.Aswarthamma, on 20 June, 2018

ii) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the question that Ex.B2 Will dated 10.3.1969 is true or not is a pure question of fact, and, therefore, the present Second Appeal ought to be dismissed in limini as concluded by the concurrent findings of fact regarding truth of Ex.B2 Will, relying on a catena of decisions in Smt. Malkani v. Jamadar22, Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane v. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar23, Nalinakshi N. Rai and Others v. Indira Shetty24 and K. Vittal Rao v. S.K. Laxmi Bai25.
Telangana High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rukmani Devi (Since Deceased) Through ... vs Prem Lata & Anr on 1 January, 2020

In these circumstances also, the appellant/plaintiff has no case in his favour. As per this, the daughter of late Atma Ram also can inherit the property. He has also placed reliance on the matriculation certificate of Mrs. Prem Lata. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered in Smt. Malkani versus Jamadar and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 767 and argued that ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:26:14 :::HCHP 13 the beneficiaries taking active partition in the execution of the Will does not make the Will suspicious.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - C B Barowalia - Full Document

Pritam Kaur vs Rajinder Singh And Ors on 27 July, 2023

To similar extent is ratio of decisions in Shashi Kumar Banerjee's case (Supra), Gurdev Kaur an others v. Kaki and others, (2007) 1 SCC 546; Malkani (Smt.) v. Jamadar and others, (1987) 1 SCC 610; Gurdial Singh Mann and others v. Kulwant Kaur and others, 1989 (2) R.R.R. 142 & Baldev Raj Ahuja's case (Supra). Apart from the fact 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 02-08-2023 21:57:37 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:095866 RSA No.2134 of 1992 (O&M) -16- Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:095866 that there was absence of any pleading on the part of the respondents- plaintiff that the appellant-defendant took the active part in the execution of the Will in question by the testator in her favour, there was also no evidence that the appellant in any manner had forced or influenced the testator to execute and sign the Will against his wishes. On the contrary, it is proved from the testimony of DW-5 that the contents of the Will were read over and explained to the testator in his presence and he had willingly and voluntarily signed the same. Though this witness also stated that the propounder of the Will was present at that time and the Will after execution was handed over to her but that does not mean that she had made any active participation in the registration of Will. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned First Appellate Court erred in considering this circumstance as a suspicious one and the registration of Will by the testator in the presence of appellant could not be considered as a vitiating factor.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitendra Nath Gupta And Ors. vs Ram Narain Gupta (Since Dead) Through ... on 23 May, 2008

In Smt. Malkani (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, it was pleaded that the Will was not a natural Will as there was no reason as to why the testatrix should have disinherited her daughter, particularly when she was living with her and further that the propounders took very active part in the execution of the Will and that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance. It was, therefore, pleaded that under these circumstances the onus was heavy on the propounders to remove the suspicion. The Supreme Court observed that the fact that the propounder of the Will took an active part in the execution of the Will and that they were beneficiaries under the Will were by themselves not sufficient to disprove the Will. It was also noted that it was evident that the testatrix was determined in bequeathing the property to her husband's brothers' sons to the exclusion of the plaintiff. If the testamentary capacity of the testatrix and the due execution of the Will were established, then a Will could not be rejected merely because propounders took an active part in its execution or were beneficiaries under the Will. It also needs to be mentioned that in the present case, it has been found that when the Will was executed on 25th June, 1993, the propounder of the Will Rajendra Gupta was not in the city. The Courts below have also given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the propounder of the Will did not influence the testator.
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next