Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 230 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Kavita Kanwar vs Mrs. Pamela Mehta on 19 May, 2020

Smt Bimla Devi vs The State & Ors on 6 May, 2025

40. Lastly, the appellant's counsel's plea that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances due to the attesting witnesses' relationship with the beneficiary is also legally unsustainable. Apart from inviting reference to the passage from the decision in the matter of Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Burman v. State (supra) has held that even a beneficiary could also be an attesting witness and mere relationship does not disqualify a person, unless malafides or undue influence is demonstrated.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Smt. Veena Khanna vs State & Ors on 29 April, 2024

In Kavita Kanwar vs. Pamela Mehta and Ors (supra), in a similar situation, the Apex Court observed that the basic question which TEST CAS. 72/2017 Page 20 of 36 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:01.05.2024 18:22:32 immediately crops up is what could have the reason for the testatrix of being desirous of providing unequal distribution of the assets by giving major share to one child in preference to other two children. Even if it is presumed that the testatrix had special affection towards one child, it is difficult to assume that the alleged special affection towards one child should necessarily correspond to repugnance towards the other children by the same parents. In the ordinary and natural course, a person could be expected to be more inclined towards the child taking his/her care; however, it would be too unrealistic to assume that special love and affection towards one, may be blue-eyed, child would also result in a person leaving the serving and needy child in lurch. Such unfair disposition of property or an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs, would be regarded as a suspicious circumstance. The unexplained, unequal distribution of the property was confounded by two other major factors:
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Sanjay Kalra vs State on 27 May, 2025

In Kavita Kanwar (supra), the Supreme Court, placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Shashi Kumar Banerjeet & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 529, and Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors. v. T.C.Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321, held that mere exclusion of the natural heirs or giving lesser share to them, by itself, will not be considered as a suspicious circumstance. It was observed that a Will is executed to alter the ordinary course of succession, and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing/increasing or depriving the share of natural heir. It was held that though it is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances, but the mere fact that the natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, would not in itself be a suspicious circumstance.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next