Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Maria Stella, Karunai Nesam And David ... vs T. Joseph Catherine, T.X. Francis, A. ... on 11 July, 2002

Valliammal vs Sokkammal on 26 March, 2012

32. Nextly, when we consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that one of the attesting witness namely Kandasamy was called for by the defendants and he did not appear before Court and therefore, the propounder can resort to the next step of producing other evidence to prove the Will, under Section 69 of the Act. According to the said submission of the appellant counsel, he would insist that on the summons issued to the attesting witness Kandasamy, was not responded to Court, this Court can coerce him to depose before Court and therefore, the propounders are relieved from compelling the witness to come to the Court for giving evidence. He would rely upon a judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2003 MAD 270 (Maria Stella and others v. T.Joseph Catherine and others) for the principle that if the attesting witness is not available, Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act can be resorted to and the Will can be proved by any other evidence. The relevant passage would run as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Ramachandra Marthandam vs Linga Vijayan on 13 April, 2010

41. This decision is also clearly distinguishable on the ground that, in that case, it was held in para No.29 that husband of the first apellant and father of the appellants 2 and 3 had not only admitted the execution of the Will of hismother, but also acted further as contemplated under Exs. A1 and A2 therein. Therefore, they themselves did not dispute the Will, the persons claiming through him cannot sustain their objection regarding the genuineness of the said Will. In that case also, the Will was never called upon in question. Therefore, the observations made by this Court in the above said decision as to the fact of testator seeing the attesting witnesses signing the will or vice-versa cannot come to the rescue of the respondents/plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Muniammal (Deceased) vs Chinamma on 11 June, 2015

In an unreported decision of this Court in Maria Stella v. Joseph Catherine, in C.M.A. No. 1020 of 1990 dated 11.7.2002, one of us (K. Govindarajan, J.) has held, considering the previous decisions, as well as the effect of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the factum of registration of the Will, that it is clear that it is not necessary to give positive evidence to prove that the testatrix did see the attesting witnesses put their signatures or that attesting witnesses saw the testatrix sign the document. Where there is proof of signature, everything else is implied till the contrary is proved. In the absence of witnesses who are either dead or cannot be brought to Court or cannot recollect the facts, the second evidence is permitted.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

A.Gomathi vs A.Sangeetha on 24 June, 2015

"25.In an unreported decision of this Court in Maria Stella v. Joseph Catherine, in C.M.A. No. 1020 of 1990 dated 11.7.2002, one of us (K. Govindarajan, J.) has held, considering the previous decisions, as well as the effect of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the factum of registration of the Will, that it is clear that it is not necessary to give positive evidence to prove that the testatrix did see the attesting witnesses put their signatures or that attesting witnesses saw the testatrix sign the document. Where there is proof of signature, everything else is implied till the contrary is proved. In the absence of witnesses who are either dead or cannot be brought to Court or cannot recollect the facts, the second evidence is permitted.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - V M Velumani - Full Document

S.L.Mothi Lal vs S.L.Kupplusamy(Died) on 28 March, 2023

50. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has relied on the 37/44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)Nos.258 and 259 of 2008 judgment of this Court in Maria Stella and others Vs. T.Joseph Catherine and others reported in (2002)3 MLJ 111, wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that the witnesses to speak like a parrot repeating that the testator put his signature/thumb impression in their presence and that the testator putting the thumb impression and that the testator saw the witnesses signing the settlement deed / will.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Janaki Devi vs R. Vasanthi And Ors. on 9 December, 2004

In an unreported decision of this Court in Maria Stella v. Joseph Catherine, in C.M.A. No. 1020 of 1990 dated 11.7.2002, one of us (K. Govindarajan, J.) has held, considering the previous decisions, as well as the effect of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the factum of registration of the Will, that it is clear that it is not necessary to give positive evidence to prove that the testatrix did see the attesting witnesses put their signatures or that attesting witnesses saw the testatrix sign the document. Where there is proof of signature, everything else is implied till the contrary is proved. In the absence of witnesses who are either dead or cannot be brought to Court or cannot recollect the facts, the second evidence is permitted.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1   2 Next