Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Motibai Hormusji Kanga vs Jamsetji Hormusji Kanga on 30 November, 1923

Kumari Narra Naga Yellamani Ratna Teja, vs K. Radha Kuamri on 12 February, 2020

In the light of what has been stated if the various requirements of a valid will are established, then as observed by the Privy Council in Motibai Hormusjee Kanga's case A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 28 at p. 33 'A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - M V Ramana - Full Document

Chanchal Kumar Das And Ors. vs Pasupati Nath Das And Ors. on 4 February, 2005

3.13. If the various requirements of a valid Will are established, then as observed by the Privy Council in Motibai Hormusjee Kanga v. Jamsedji Hormusjee Kanga, 80 IC 777 : 26 BLR 579 : AIR 1924 PC 28 at p. 33 : "It is quite clear that the onus of establishing capacity lay on the petitioner. It is also clear that if the caveator impugned the Will on the ground that it was obtained by the exercise of undue influence, excessive persuasion or moral coercion, it lay upon him to establish that case....... A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition."
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document

Mary Assumption Trinidade Etc. vs Vincent Manuel Trinidade And Ors. on 14 August, 1975

(58) The inconsistency with regard to the rights of the sons in the partnership business, however, appears to be more serious. The Icarned District Judge; however, pointed out in his judgment that the interest of the sons in the partnership business in terms of deed of partnership "would naturally remain uneffected by any disposition made by the deceased" apparently implying that even if the Will purported to bequeath the entire business to the grandson, so far as the business is concerned, it would naturally be valid only to the extent of the testator's interest in it and that could not be extended to the entire business. The contention that is, however, urged on behalf of the appellants is not as to the legal effect of the disposition on the interest of the sons in the partnership but as to the inconsistency between the two documents and its effect on the genuineness of the Will, According to Ex. R 1, the two sons of the testator had been working with him in his business as employees and since effect admittedly was given to the deed of partnership sons were working with the father as full-fledged partners to the extent of 5 annas in a rupee each since right from the year 1960 and were working as such when the Will was executed in the year 1966. The testator, therefore, if he knew what he was doing, runs the argument, could not possibly have ignored that lie had only interest in the business to the extent of 6 annas in a rupee and that the business was not his sole proprietory business as is apparently indicated by the r..referenccs in the Will referred to above. In fact in para 2 of the Will, the fcs:ator makes out that "I have unrestricted powers of' disposal of immoveable and moveable property mentioned herein" obviously referring to the dry cleaning business as well. Such a provision in the Will by a person who had himself admitted his sons to the benefit of partnership and had been working as such for about six years obviously puts a Court to an enquiry as to the possible reasons for such an inconsistency end as to an explanation for it. The question that, therefore, requires consideration is if this inconsistency does or does not introduce an infirmity in the Will so as to constitute either as unnatural element or to otherwise cast a suspicion on its genuineness. The conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge that the Will would not affect the interest of the sons in the partnership is, to my mind, besides the point. That raises a question of law as to the validity of the bequest with which this Court is not concerned in the present proceedings because it is well-settled that the probate Court is not concerned with the testator's title to the property forming subject matter of the bequest. It is, however, not possible to accept the contention that the said Will could not have been executed by the testator because the evidence of the attesting witnesses is absolutely unimpeachable. It is, however, pertinent to enquire if, even while executing the document and admitting its execution, the testator could be said to have been conscious of what he was doing. The evidence of the attesting witnesses is categorical that the document was read over by the testator, he admitted it to be his Will, he was in a fit state of mind and knew what he was doing. Is it possible to accept the hypothesis that the signatory to Ex. R 1 could have signed the Will Ex. Pi fully aware of the implications of what he was doing ? This question must, however, be answered in the context of the ripe age at which the testator is said to have executed the Will and the state of his mental and physical health at that time. He had admittedly suffered an heart attack and had been involved in a serious accident which obviously must have affected his mental faculties to a very large extent. It may be, therefore, that even while broadly understanding the implications of what he was doing and possessed of sound disposing mind, it escaped his notice that the Will as drawn may imply as if he was bequeathing the entire dry cleaning business to the grandson to the exclusion of the two sons. If either his mental faculties had been affected to such an extent or his free agency was impaired because of some events so that he could not co-relate the Will to Ex. R 1, could it be said that the testator was possessed of a sound disposing mind when he executed the Will or was in possession of all his faculties and was not under anybody's undue influence.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sh. K.C. Bajaj And Ors. vs Smt. Sudershan Kumari And Anr. on 11 April, 2008

It is not for the Court to find out justification or equity or otherwise in the action of the testator. It is not for the Court to make it fair or to sermonize. It is not for the Court to refuse the grant on account of the fact that the disposition is not just and fair or is unnatural or improbable when the conscience of the Court is clear about the proof of the execution of the will on the face of the evidence, satisfactorily sufficient, to remove the suspicious circumstances. As observed by Privy Council in the decision reported as Motibai Hormusjee Kanga v. Jamsetjee Hormusjee Kanga AIR 1924 PC 28 that A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Surendra Pal & Ors vs Saraswati Arora & Anr on 9 August, 1974

in the light of the relevant circumstances. if the caveator does not discharge the burden which rests upon him in establishing the circumstances which show that the will had been obtained by fraud or undue influence a probate of the will must necessarily be granted if it is established that the testator had full testamentary capacity and had in fact executed it validly with a free will and mind. The observations of the Privy Council in Motibai Hormusjee Kanga v. Jamsetjee Hormusjee Kanga(1) support the above proposition. Mr. Ammer Ali observed at p. 33 "It is quite clear that the onus of establishing capacity lay on the petitioner. It is also clear that if the caveator impugned the will on the ground that it was obtained by the exercise of undue influences, excessive persuasion or moral coercion, it lay upon him to establish that case." in the light of what has been stated if the various requirements of a valid will are established, then as observed by the Privy Council in Motibai Hormusjee Kanga's came at p. 33 'A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full com- prehension of what he is doing the Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 175 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Sita Kashyap Thru Lrs. vs Harbans Kashyap & Ors. on 15 May, 2013

7. It is not for the Court to consider whether the disposition of the property was good or bad. The duty of the Probate Court is to see whether prima facie, the document constitutes a Will and if so whether the propounder has been able to satisfy the CS (OS) 1943/1998 Page 5 of 26 conscience of the Court that the Will was a validly executed and genuine document, signed out of free will, propounded in a sound disposition of mind, after having understood the nature and effect thereof. The Privy Council in Motibai Hormusjee Kanga v. Jamsetjee Hormusjee Kanga, AIR 1924 PC 28 observed "a man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next