Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane vs Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar & Ors on 10 July, 1995

Ms. Anita Bishnu vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 18 March, 2011

24. After analytical analysis of the entire evidence on record, I, unhesitatingly conclude that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2) and so, reliance placed upon decisions in Pargat Singh vs. Aas Kaur (died) through her L.R. Lakha Singh, 1997 (3) RCR Civil 193 (P&H); Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. State, 157 (2009) DLT 731; Smt. Indu Bala Bose and others vs. Munindra Chandra Bose & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 133; Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane vs. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar and others, AIR 1995 SC 2086; and H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443, by learned counsel for the Plaintiff - Deepak Kumar is of no avail. In the light of the evidence on record, it is held that the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2) had been validly executed in favour of Petitioner - Anita, who is entitled to letter of administration in respect of the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2). Consequentially, it is held that Plaintiff - Deepak Kumar looses the locus and is not entitled to the relief of partition, as claimed by him.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S Gaur - Full Document

Narender Nath Nanda vs The State on 1 July, 2010

[See Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane vs Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar & Ors.: (1995) 5 SCC 215 at Para 14] 9.3. The propounder of the Will, while satisfying the court‟s "conscience" should attempt to dispel any suspicious or unnatural circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will provided such unnatural suspicious circumstances attach to the Will. The law does not permit conjecture or suspicion to take place of "legal proof". Well grounded suspicion can be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone, cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion one way or the other.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Surendra Bhatia And Etc. vs Smt. Punam Bhatia And Ors. Etc. on 26 April, 2001

In the case of Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane v. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar AIR 1995 SC 2086, it was held that the propounder taking prominent part in execution of Will which confers substantial benefits on him, shaky signature, feeble mind which is likely to be influenced, unfair and unjust disposal of property, were not present in the Will and, therefore, it could not be considered that the will was involving any suspicious circumstance.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Kumar And Anr. vs Dev Shanker And Ors. on 7 October, 2004

The inference drawn by the court below that the Will in question was not in existence on the date of the death of Smt. Janak Dulari, in such circumstances cannot be said to be unwarranted. It is expected that a person in whose favour there is a Will in existence and having its knowledge will disclose the Will at the earliest opportunity, otherwise he has to explain the circumstances which prevented him to set up the Will. There is absolutely no explanation from the side of the appellants for not disclosing the Will at the earliest opportunity. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane v. Ram Chandra Vithal Ganeshkar and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 215 and submitted that it was not necessary to disclose the Will in the criminal proceedings as it was related to the question of possession only. The aforesaid ruling does not lay down as a proposition of law that nondisclosure of Will before the criminal court cannot be taken as a suspicious circumstance to the due execution of a Will. In the facts of that case the Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court was not right in reappreciating the evidence in second appeal and coming to the conclusion that the Will was not genuine or was not proved. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that there is also a case law about this fact that what are the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will, which required the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Will can be accepted as genuine. One of the circumstance is unfair and unjust disposal of the property. In that case it was found that there was no suspicious circumstances reflecting on the genuineness of the Will. Therefore, on the facts, the aforesaid case law has no application to the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P Krishna - Full Document

Kishan Singh Ahluwalia vs Sheela Saxena And Ors. on 14 March, 2001

22. Some of the suspicious circumstances as indicated by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Vrindavanibai Sambhoji Mane v. Ram-chandra Vithal Ganeshkar and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 2086 are (a) The propounder taking a prominent part in the execution of a Will which confers substantial benefits on him; (b) Shaky signature; (c) A feeble mind which is likely to be influenced; and (d) Unfair and unjust disposal of the property.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Deependra Singh @ Deepak Parihar vs Smt. Shakuntala Pal And Anr. on 28 September, 2007

In that regard decision of Supreme Court in Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane v. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar and Ors. , has also been placed reliance. Thus according to learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the learned Probate Court did not commit any error in dismissing the application of probate filed on behalf of the appellant and this appeal sans substance and the same be dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - A K Shrivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next