Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)

Usha Jain & Ors vs Snehalata Kumudini Barnabas on 29 April, 2019

29. It was further argued that even if the issues pertaining to the validity of marriage and proof of divorce are decided in favour of the Respondents, yet the Petitioner would be entitled to the probate on the basis of the doctrine of persona designata. The designation attributed to the Petitioner would be sufficient under the aforesaid doctrine, even if the marriage is found to be invalid in the eyes of the law. The bequest would still be good in law. The Court should not delve into the nature and contents of the bequest being beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. On this subject, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following judgments Smt. Uttami v. Shri Ram Dass, ILR 1973 2 HP 962and Siddaramappa v. Smt. Gouravva AIR 2004 Kant 230.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - S Narula - Full Document

Smt. Yeshodamma vs Gowda Nayak on 24 November, 2022

23. As I stated supra, there is no case being made by the defendants about the ceremony of adoption and even no independent witness has been examined to prove the so called adoption. Merely because, Adoption Deed is registered it does not mean that the defendant No.3 was given in adoption to Late Sri. Rangaswamy. It is pertinent to note that, the available records 22 O.S.No.6788/2014 clearly go to show that the present plaintiff is the wife of late Sri. G.Rangaswamy and both begotten totally 8 children and such being the fact, without the consent of the present plaintiff so called adoption cannot be completed. Hence, in this regard, the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Adoption Deed dated 13-03-2003 is hit by Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has to be accepted, since his argument is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 298 in the case of Ghisalal Vs.Dhapubai (Dead) by his LRs and others and also supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3611 in the case of Siddaramappa and Others Vs. Smt. Gouravva.
Bangalore District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1