Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Shri L.C. Lai And Ors. vs State on 27 August, 2002

Sh. Amit Swami vs Sh. M. K. Sharma on 26 February, 2022

22. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in L.C. Lai and others Vs. State, 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 343, that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the Will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption. No evidence, whatsoever, has been produced by the objectors to prove that the testatrix was not having sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. No record of medical treatment has been filed to show that the testatrix was lying indisposed or was not having sound state of mind. Even suggestions had not been given to the witnesses to show that testatrix was not having sound state of mind.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Rameshwar Sharma vs State on 15 April, 2008

12. I will deal with the suspicious circumstances pointed out above one by one. In cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that the age of the deceased at the time of her death was 92 years. The Will was executed by her about six months prior to her death. He admitted in cross examination that about one or one and a half year prior to her death, deceased was very ill but denied the suggestion that she was mentally and physically indisposed during the said period. PW-3 Sh. N.N. Sharma, advocate has stated that the testatrix was in a fine physical and mental state at the time of execution of the Will and had signed the Will after understanding the contents, stated in the Will. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Basant Bai was not well on 3/4.09.1992. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in L.C. Lai and others Vs. State, 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 343, that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the Will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption. No evidence, whatsoever, has been produced by the objectors to prove that the testatrix was not having sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. No record of medical treatment has been filed to show that the testatrix was lying indisposed or was not having sound state of mind. The bare suggestions given to the witness are of no : 10 : consequence, particularly, when the testatrix survived for about six months after the execution of the Will and was also contesting the civil case with the objectors during that period. Merely because the testatrix was ill since about one and a half years prior to her death, no presumption can be drawn that she was not having sound disposing mind.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Yashpal Chauhan vs State (Delhi Admn) on 6 May, 2008

21. Admittedly, the deceased was suffering from cancer but in his affidavit, petitioner has stated that his father was having sound disposing mind throughout till his death and there was no problem with his mental capabilities, even though, he was admitted at Apollo Hospital for cancer of the shoulder and underarm. According to him, his father had died due to Pneumonia. The deceased expired on 20.09.2002 while the alleged Will was executed on 17.06.2002. In cross examination, PW-1 has stated that the cancer was detected about two weeks before his death when he was admitted at Apollo Hospital. He denied the suggestion that the deceased could not work with his right hand because of cancer in his right shoulder. PW-2 in his statement has deposed that the executant was in full senses at the time of execution of the Will and had gone through the contents of the Will : 15 : before signing the same. In cross examination, he has stated that the executant was quite healthy and came of his own at the office of Sub Registrar and had executed the Will freely without any pressure. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in L.C. Lai and others Vs. State, 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 343 held that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the Will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption. Admittedly, the deceased was residing with respondent No. 3. In his affidavit, respondent No. 3 has stated that he was taking care of his father during his old age while he was suffering from cancer. Therefore, all the treatment record of the deceased should be in possession of respondent No. 3. However, no record has been produced by him to prove that his father was suffering from caner even at the time when the Will was executed. No medical record has been submitted to prove that the deceased as unable to sign with his right hand or was not having sound mind because of the ailments from which he was suffering. The bare suggestions given to the witnesses that the testator was not in a position to execute the Will, are far from sufficient. There is no evidence to conclude that the deceased was not in a position to execute the Will or was not having a sound mind.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Santosh @ Anokhi vs State on 29 July, 2008

12. It has also been argued that the mental condition of Sh. Bhagwan Dass was not good in the year 1994 as he was a patient of Epilepsy and his hands used to tremble and he could not move or sign properly. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in L.C. Lai and others Vs. State, 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 343 held that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the Will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption. The Will was executed on 19.12.1994 while the deceased expired on 23.10.1999. No medical record whatsoever has been produced to prove that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy : 11 : or that his hands were trembling or that he was not having sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. A bare suggestion given to the witnesses suggesting that the deceased was unable to execute the Will because of the aforesaid problems, are far from sufficient. Hence, the plea taken that the deceased was not in a position to execute the Will, is not acceptable.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(Pc No. 310/06) (Mukesh Ramrakhiani vs . State & Ors.) on 22 September, 2008

15. Similarly, in the case of L.C. Lai and others Vs. State, 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 343 held that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the Will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption. Petitioner in his affidavit has stated that the deceased was having full disposing mind at the time of his death. Attesting witness Sh. S.R. Khandelwal, advocate has also deposed that the mental faculties of the testator were perfect at the time of execution of the Will. In cross examination, he again stated that the testator was having perfect state of mind, although, he was physically very weak. As discussed above, it has been proved that the testator had started putting the thumb mark since the year 1999 because his hands were shaking. It has been observed that the witnesses have consistently deposed that the deceased was having perfect mental condition.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(Pc No227/06) (Radhika Nayyer vs . State & Ors.) on 30 September, 2008

17. Respondent No. 2 for the first time took an objection in his affidavit that his mother was not having sound disposing mind since about one year prior to her death. No such plea was taken in the objections. The evidence lead beyond the pleadings cannot be read in evidence. Otherwise also in his cross examination, respondent No. 2 states that his mother was never admitted in any hospital between October, 2002 to Mach, 2003. He further stated, she might have taken treatment from some local doctor but could not tell the name of the doctor. He could not specify the name of the disease with which, she was suffering. No medical record has been produced to prove that the testatrix was suffering from any kind of mental disorder or that she was not having sound disposing mind. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in L.C. Lai & others vs State, 2002 VII AD (Delhi) 343 held that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption. In the present case, there is no material whatsoever to doubt the capacity of testatrix to dispose her property. The respondent was questioned in cross examination about the reason for challenging the Will.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(Pc No.269/06 ) (Ashwani Kohli vs . State & Ors.) on 3 October, 2008

15. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in L.C. Lai and others Vs. State, 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 343 held that the burden of establishing sound state of mind of the testator is on the person propounding the Will, but this burden is very light because there is presumption of soundness of mind in favour of every testator. However unless there is cogent material on record to doubt his capacity to dispose, the court must go by this presumption.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1