Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 185 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing K. Laxmanan vs Thekkayil Padmini & Ors on 3 December, 2008

Judgment Reserved On vs D.Albert on 29 July, 2015

22.In the decision reported in 2009 (1) SCC 354 (K.Laxmanan vs. Thekkayil Padmini and others), it was held that there is no specific denial. But here admittedly in the earlier paragraph, whether there is specific denial or not who has to prove the settlement deed has already been decided and order has been passed on 28.03.2012, by invoking Order 41 Rule 28 CPC and direction has been given to the Trial Court to record additional evidence. In such circumstances, the above citation is not relevant to the facts of the present case and no relevance can be made at this stage. In Exs.B7 and B8 Leela Abraham and Sundaramoorthy are the attestors and in Ex.B9 Leela Abraham and Ramasamy are the attestors. So, the attestation has been proved in accordance with law under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act and execution has been proved by D.W.1. It is pertinent to note that D.W.4/Albert in his evidence has stated that Exs.B7 to B9 contained his father's signature. He further submitted in his cross examination that his father has executed the settlement deed in favour of his brother/third defendant. So, the family members also aware of the fact. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the third defendant/second respondent has proved the due execution and valid attestation of Exs.B7 to B9 and the oral evidence of D.W.1 has proved that Exs.B7 to B9 have been accepted by him and acted upon by him.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Raminder Singh Kapany vs Parminder Singh Kapany on 21 November, 2019

22 It is settled position in law that onus of proving the Will is on propounder and propounder had to prove the legality of execution and genuineness of the said Will by proving absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will and also by proving the testamentary capacity and signatures of testator. This principle of law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in K. Laxmanan vs. Thekkayil Padmini and others reported in (2009)1 SCC 354.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - V S Thakur - Full Document

A.Dhanalakshmi vs M.Sridharan on 18 April, 2011

(c) According to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, the evidence of P.W.2 would not be sufficient to prove the Will said to have been executed by the testator Manivannan @ Manivanna Niacker, produced as Ex.P2. For the said submission, the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2008(6) CTC 92 (K.Laxmanan vs. Thekkayil Padmini and others) and the relevant paragraphs would run as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

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

51. Similarly, in Babu Singh vs Ram Sahai, (2008) 14 SCC 754, K. Laxamanan vs Thekkayil Padmini, (2009) 1 SCC 354, Kalyanswami. vs L. Bakthavatsalam, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 584 it was observed that Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if execution of Will could not be proved by examining the attesting witness or in absence/ TEST CAS. 72/2017 Page 14 of 36 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:01.05.2024 18:22:32 non-availability of the attesting witness, secondary evidence could be adduced to prove the Will. This can be achieved by proving the handwriting of one of the attesting witnesses and signature of the executant of the document to be in the handwriting of that person.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Smt. Sunita Vig vs Veena Soin on 27 May, 2023

59. So far as the reliance by Ld. Counsel for defendants on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 354 is concerned, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 34 of its judgment in Govindbhai's case supra, the decision of the aforesaid case was based on categorical finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court that as a CS DJ no. 627/2017 Sunita Vig Vs. Veena Soin & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anuradha Malhotra vs Sunita Vig on 27 May, 2023

66. So far as the reliance by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 354 is concerned, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 34 of its judgment in Govindbhai's case supra, the decision of the aforesaid case was based on categorical finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court that as a matter of fact plaintiff in the said case had specifically denied the execution of the gift deed in question by the donor, which is not so in the case in hand.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Adhikesavan vs M.Sasikala on 21 December, 2023

“26. Execution of the aforesaid deed of gift is also under challenge. The attesting witnesses to the said deed of gift are also not examined. It was, however, submitted that the mandatory requirement of examining an attesting witness under Section 68 of the Act is only in respect of a will and in respect of gift deed, if execution of the said is not specifically denied, then in that case there is no obligation on the part of the propounder of the deed of gift to prove the execution by examining an attesting witness like that of a deed of will.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next