Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead)By Lrs vs A.J. Francis on 3 April, 2006

Anil Kumar Nijhawan vs Dr. Sushil Kumar Nijhawan on 11 September, 2024

2024.09.11 14:30:33 +0530 be proved by the mode provided under these two sections and in no other manner and second is, that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances. He has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apoline D'Souza v. John D'Souza, 2007 AIR (SC) 2219; Benga Behera v. Braja Kishore Nanda, 2007 AIR (SC) 1975; Joseph Antony Lazarus v. A.J Francis, 2006 AIR (SC) 1895 and N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy, 2001 AIR (SC) 2802.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaswinder Kaur vs Rupinder Kaur on 4 November, 2022

It is settled proposition of law that mere exclusion or dis- heritance of a natural heir while executing a Will is not to be taken as a suspicious circumstance as the very purpose of execution of a Will is to divert from the line of natural succession. However, it has also been settled and expounded upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that any unnatural, improbable or unfair disposition made in the Will has to be considered as a suspicious circumstance. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein it has been established on record that the respondent happened to be the legally wedded wife SANJAY GUPTA 2022.11.07 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4923-2019 (O&M) [8] of deceased Shamsher Singh, neither the testator has recorded the factum of his marriage with the respondent in the Will; nor even her name has been mentioned therein. More than that, no provision has even been made for her maintenance particularly under the circumstances wherein it has been established/ proved on record from the statements of DW1 i.e. appellant herself as well as DW3- Lakhwinder Singh, who happens to be the cousin of deceased Shamsher Singh that the relationship between the husband and wife remained amicable throughout. Similarly, the omission to mention two of her sons by the testator now taken to be a suspicious circumstance by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead) by LRs Vs. A.J. Francis, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 570 and relevant part of para 20 thereof, reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Promila Kapoor vs State & Ors on 4 November, 2022

64.The Respondent No.1 could have dispelled this doubt by summoning the draftsman of the said Will. However, the draftsman of Will was not summoned to prove this crucial fact. The above inference is further fortified by the observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead) by LRs v. A.J. Francis reported as (2006) 9 SCC 515, wherein the Hon‟ble Court made the following observations at Para 21:
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajan Khosla vs Smt. Simi Khosla on 24 April, 2023

32. The ld. counsel for the defendant has further submitted that the plaintiff had failed to even examine the advocate who is supposed to have drafted the will on the instructions of the testatrix. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has also not examined the sub-registrar before whom the will is said to have been presented for registration. It is submitted that there is no evidence that the will was ever read over to and explained to the testatrix before she executed the will. The ld. counsel has relied upon Joseph Antony Lazarus Vs. A.J. Francis, AIR 2006 SC 1895.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitendra Nath Gupta And Ors. vs Ram Narain Gupta (Since Dead) Through ... on 23 May, 2008

In Joseph Antony Lazarus (supra), which has been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants, the Supreme Court noticed that the Will had been registered after more than a year of its execution and that no other document except the Will had been produced to indicate that the testator ever signed her name as Mrs. M. Solomon Lazarus. It also found that the two signatures made on the Will, even to the naked eye, were entirely different and had no likeness whatsoever and that there was no evidence to ascertain that whether the Will was ever readover and explained to the testatrix before she is said to have executed and presented the Will for registration. The Supreme Court observed that it is a cumulative effect of all these circumstances that the aspect that the learned Advocate who is said to have drafted the Will on the instructions of the testatrix and the non-examination of the Sub-Registrar before whom the Will is said to have been presented for registration has to be considered for finding out the suspicious circumstances. This decision does not help the appellants because it was on account of the four factors referred to above that the Supreme Court observed that the examination of the Advocate and the Sub-Registrar were necessary.
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next