Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 414 (2.07 seconds)
Documents citing Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002

P.Sasikala vs Smt.Chandra

39. This Court after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence on either side and the decisions cited on either side, has not satisfied as to the genuineness of the Will propounded by the plaintiff. It is now well settled that requirement of the proof of execution of a Will is the same as in case of certain other documents, for example gift or mortgage. The law requires that the proof of execution of a Will has to be attested at least by two witnesses. At least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution and attestation of the Will. Further, it is to be proved that the executant had signed and/or given his thumb impression in presence of at least two attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses had put their signatures in presence of the executant. (See Madhukar D.Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam and Bhagat Ram Vs. Suresh).
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oruganti Ramanaiah,S/O Appaiah, Aged ... vs Nannapuneni Gangadhara Rao Died Per ... on 29 January, 2018

The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. [See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Shedage MANU/SC/0016/2002 :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - A V Sai - Full Document

K.Geetha vs V.Vasudevan on 16 August, 2007

42.Placing reliance upon 2002 (2) SCC 85 [Madhukar D.Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage], the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that if evidence adduced is convincing, satisfying the conscience of the Court and when there is nothing unnatural about the transaction, mere conjectures or unfounded suspicious circumstances should not be allowed to sway the verdict. It was submitted that D-5 and D-6 being employed and other sons and daughter not being employed, quite naturally, Vijayaranga Mudaliar would have thought it fit to bequeath the properties and Ex.P-1 is a natural disposition. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sri Krishna Kumar V. Shah And Another vs Smt. Anila J.Shah W/O Jagannadh Shah And ... on 1 June, 2015

The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. [See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 and Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 784]. Subject to above, proof of a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

N.Govindarajan vs N.Leelavathy on 1 July, 2011

37. Placing reliance upon (2002) 2 SCC 85 [Madhukar D.Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage], learned counsel for Plaintiff contended that the judicial thinking should not be affected by unfounded suspicious circumstances which are not well founded. It was further contended that the finding of the learned Judge as to the alleged tampering is purely surmises of the learned Judge and not well founded.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 15 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Bahadur Singh vs Pooran Singh & Ors on 17 November, 2011

Even if their version that Joothar Singh was not keeping good health was believed, then also no inference could be drawn that the said Joothar Singh was not in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the said will. Apart from the fact that the witness Tarachand had specifically stated in his evidence that Joothar Singh was absolutely in sound state of his mind when he came along with Shishupal Singh and other persons at his place for scribing the will, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said Joothar Singh was not in sound state of his mind two three years prior to his death. The court has also found substance in the submission of Mr. Agrawal for the respondent No.1 that the said will having been executed in the year 1976 and the evidence having been recorded in the year 1984-85 they were bound to be certain minor discrepancies in their evidence, which should not be given undue weightage in view of the cogent evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding the execution and genuineness of the will. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhukar D. Shende v/s Tarabai Aba Shedage (supra), the law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish of fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next