Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Anand Burman vs State on 27 July, 2012

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

Whether Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma ... vs Unknown on 11 July, 2023

16. All the above rulings contain the most necessary wisdom that is required in considering the principles about making of a Will and when it can be said that the testator validly executed the Will and how the Will is to be proved and which witnesses are to be examined in proof of the Will and about the need for examining the attestors of a Will and as to what should be done if the attestors are no more available. These rulings also indicate that the presumption of law that a 30 year old document is presumed to have been duly executed cannot be taken aid of when it comes to proof of a testament/Will. On the principles laid down in these rulings, there is absolutely no controversy. Ex.B.1 is the Will in dispute. It is a Will dated 4 (2013) 7 SCC 490 5 (2009) 3 SCC 687 6 2022 SCC Online P&H 581 11 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.668 of 2018 30.10.1995. It is stated to have been executed by Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma. It bears the purported signature of the executant of the will. Her signature finds place at such place after the body of the Will indicating that the signatory indicates her assent over the contents written above. This document also bears the signatures of Sri B.Satyanarayana Rao and Smt. Dandamraju Jayalakshmamma as attesting witnesses to the Will. Be it noted, the second attestor Smt. Dandamraju Jayalakshmamma is the very original plaintiff in O.S.No.110 of 2002 and is daughter of the testatrix. One would also see from this document it is a hand written document and the scribe is Sri M.Srirama Samba Murthy Lakshmi Narayana Rao. Though this was executed on 30.10.1995 it was not taken for registration immediately and it was registered only on 12.04.1999. The contents of the Will indicate about several properties and indicate about the children of the testatrix and also the grandchildren of testatrix. It mentions about three schedules of properties as A, B and C. 'A' schedule properties were retained by her for her lifetime and thereafter the bequest 7 ILR (2012) 6 Delhi 152 12 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.668 of 2018 was made in favour of her one son and two daughters jointly. 'C' schedule contains of more than one item and one of the items is 561 square yards and a building thereon and it is the suit schedule property in this case.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1