Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 470 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors on 29 September, 2005

Ramesh Chander Gupta vs Ram Niwas Gupta on 18 January, 2023

74. Ld. counsel for plaintiff relying upon the judgments of Abdul Rahim (supra), Pentakota (supra) and Govind Bhai (supra) has contended that as it was a registered document, the registration itself is the attestation and there was no requirement of producing any attesting witness. He has further contended that as there was no specific denial to the assertion that the executor had executed the gift deed, the proviso to section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act was applicable and there was no requirement of producing any attesting witness but still, an attesting witness has been produced in the form of PW2 who has categorically proved the gift deed.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Supratik Guha And Another vs Smt. Narayani C. Guha on 23 March, 2026

v. Vinod Kumar and others 6 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31 [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others] 7 (2005) 8 SCC 67 [Pentakota Satyanarayana and others v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others] 16 2026:CHC-AS:462-DB the Executrix, his wife, along with life interest restricted to possession regarding the two other floors, which two floors were bequeathed absolutely to the appellants jointly in equal share after the Executrix‟s demise, is a patently fair disposition, untainted by any discrimination between the Testator‟s heirs.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharya - Full Document

Valliammal vs Sokkammal on 26 March, 2012

37. The reliance placed upon the evidence of DW4, the son of another attesting witness Kannappa Gounder cannot also be believed for the simple reason that no death certificate of Kannappa Gounder has been produced, when especially DW1 has categorically admitted that Kandasamy and Kannappa Gounder who were attesting witnesses of Ex.B3 are alive during her cross examination. Furthermore, the stage of examination of identification of the signature of the attesting witness as well as the executant under Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act would arise only after the requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act are exhausted i.e., attesting witnesses cannot be found by the propounder to examine before the Court. Therefore, that contingency would also not arise to examine DW4 to identify the signature of the attesting witness, Kannappan. It was also brought to the notice of the Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 67 (Pentakota Satyanarayana and Others v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others) by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the exclusion of the wife from inheritance would not raise any suspicious circumstances. The relevant passage would be as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Mahesh Mithalal Trivedi. vs Dinesh Jethalal Soni. on 26 March, 2026

101) The reliance placed on the judgments in Madhukar D. Shende (supra), Meenakshi Ammal (supra), Daulatram (supra), Pentakota Satyanarayana (supra), Savithri (supra), and Mahesh Kumar (supra) is equally misplaced. These judgments reiterate the settled principles governing proof of a Will, namely, that the propounder must establish due execution in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and must also satisfactorily explain any suspicious circumstances so as to satisfy the conscience of the Court as to the genuineness of the testamentary document. In the present case, however, the record 45 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:28:51 ::: TS-59-2008.doc discloses several circumstances giving rise to grave and legitimate suspicion, including incorrect statements in the Petition regarding the non-existence of heirs, as well as inconsistencies surrounding the contents of, and circumstances attending, the alleged Will. The Petitioner has failed to remove or satisfactorily explain these suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments do not assist the Plaintiff; on the contrary, they operate against him.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next