Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1879 (4.33 seconds)
Documents citing H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958

Sarasamma vs G.Pandurangan on 4 March, 2016

63. This Court in Iyengar case (H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma - AIR 1959 SC 443 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426) had clearly held that cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such circumstances it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes initial onus heavier. Such suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time when the will was made."
Madras High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - G Chockalingam - Full Document

S.Palani vs S.Bharathi Dasan (Deceased) on 12 January, 2016

37. We may, however, hasten to add that there exists a distinction where suspicions are well founded and the cases where there are only suspicions alone. Existence of suspicious circumstances alone may not be sufficient. The Court may not start with a suspicion and it should not close its mind to find the truth. A resolute and impenetrable incredulity is demanded from the Judge even if there exist circumstances of grave suspicion. (See Venkatachala Iyengar (H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma - AIR 1959 SC 443)."
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - G Chockalingam - Full Document

Chandrakant Kalbhor(Deseased) ... vs Smt. Suman Kalbhor on 17 December, 2025

The law relating to the manner and onus of proof and also the duty cast upon the court while dealing with a case based upon a will has been examined in considerable detail in several decisions [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426] , [Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, (1962) 3 SCR 195 : AIR 1962 SC 567] , [Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529] of this Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

C S Aggarwal vs State on 29 March, 2019

19. Another point that has to be considered is about the improbability in the manner in which the instrument is scripted. As observed in the report published as AIR 1959 SC 443, H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, instance of suspicious circumstances would be alleged signatures of the testator being shaky and doubtful, condition of the testator's mind being feeble and debilitated, bequest being unnatural, improbable or unfair. Apart from these infirmities, propounder taking a prominent part in the execution of the Will, more so when substantial benefits flow to them are all presumptive of the Will not being duly executed and or of suspicious circumstances.
Delhi High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - J R Midha - Full Document

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

10. But, Mr. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contends that S. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act is general while S. 68 is specific and that specific provision always prevails over a general provision and that as such even though the Will is admitted in the instant case, the same binds only the executant under Section 70 of Indian Evidence Act and does not bind the plaintiff, who is a stranger to the Will. He has cited the decisions rendered in Girja Datt v. Gangotri Datt AIR 1955 SC 346 , H. Venkatachala v. B. M. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 , Surendera Pal v. Saraswati, AIR 1974 SC 1999 and Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar AIR 1977 SC 63 . But, in all the judicial precedents referred to above, there was a specific denial with regard to the execution of the ASN,J 87 SA No.181 of 2000 Will and there was a contentious issue raised in that regard and oral evidence was adduced on that aspect and the trial courts had adjudicated on the said issue and findings were recorded. Those factors are totally absent in the instant case. Execution of the Will was not at all denied by the plaintiff and on the other hand it is admitted, but the validity with regard to the suit items was challenged and that was stated to be the cause of action and the date of cause of action is the death of late Seethamahalaxmi, who was holding the possession of the said suit schedule properties. If the factum of execution of Will was disputed, certainly, the other items of the properties covered by the Will could have been claimed. But, that is not done in the instant case. The plaintiff by admitting the execution of the Will questioned the legal validity of the same only with regard to three items (suit schedule properties), and asked the relief of possession. It is no doubt true that special provision always overrides the general provision. But, in the instant case, special provision is not at all applicable. It is also true that proviso to Section 68 is not applicable in the case of a Will. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:
Telangana High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Srisailam vs V. Krishna Murthy And Ors. on 20 November, 2002

136. It is nobody's case that sixth defendant who is propounder of the Will has taken predominant role in execution and registration of the Will. D.Ws.5, 6 and 7 in one voice state that sixth defendant was not at all associated with execution of the Will. This is a strong circumstance in favour of propounder and against caveators that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. There is a long line of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts that when a propounder takes active part in execution and registration of a Will, the burden lies on the propounder to remove and explain all suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. If the propounder has not taken any active or predominant part in execution or registration of the Will, the presumption must be in favour of the propounder that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma (supra) and Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur (supra) in the absence of any suspicious circumstances, the proof of Will is simple Us. Even if any suspicious circumstances are alleged, it is for the Court to satisfy its conscience on consideration of evidence whether the Will was executed by the testator. After anxious consideration of the rival submissions and in the light of evidence on record, I am satisfied that execution of the Will is proved and there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 50 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Smt. Bimla Devi @ Bimal Devi vs Uma Devi on 3 March, 2016

5. As regards the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills, we rather feel it tempted to incorporate the succinct expression of law, in extenso, even though rather longish in nature, by Gajendragadkar, J. in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 : (AIR 1959 SC 443). The learned Judge had the following to state (Para 18 of AIR) :
Patna High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Defendant vs Smt. Charubala Ghosh on 28 April, 2022

In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443] , it was observed: (AIR pp. 451-52, para 19) ―19. ... Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.‖
Tripura High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

Sri M H Anjinappa vs Late Doddakka on 6 January, 2025

The law relating to the manner and onus of proof and also the duty cast upon the court while dealing with a case based upon a will has been examined in considerable detail in several decisions [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443: 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426] , [Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, (1962) 3 SCR 195: AIR 1962 SC 567] , [Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529] of this Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next