Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 200 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Benga Behera & Anr vs Braja Kishore Nanda & Ors on 15 May, 2007

Sabhapati Verma vs Ved Prakash on 24 January, 2025

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Benga Behera and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others (Supra), has held that the requirement of the proof of execution of a will is the same as in the case of certain other documents, for example Gift or Mortgage and at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution and attestation of the will and it is to be proved that the executant had signed and/or given his thumb impression in presence of at least two attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses had put their signatures in presence of the executant. It has further been held that existence of suspicious circumstances itself may be held to be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the execution of the will has not duly been proved.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Satya Prakash Keshri vs Arun Prasad Keshri on 4 July, 2022

41. The Court granting letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed or probate must satisfy itself not only about the genuineness of the will but also satisfy itself that it is not fraught with any suspicious circumstances." (Emphasis supplied) Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that in view of Section 52 and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, the only duty cast upon the registering authority is to endorse the admission or execution by the person who presented the document for registration. The compliance with that provision leads to the legal presumption that the document was registered and nothing else. If an authority in performance of his statutory duty signs a document, he does not become an attesting witness within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Properties Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as the word 'attest' is to bear witness to a fact. It is then submitted that the essential condition of valid attestation are that two or more witnesses have seen the executant signed the instrument and each of 11 M.A. No. 272 of 2009 them have signed the instrument in presence of the executants animo attestandi and the same is the necessary ingredient of proving the attestation. It is next submitted by Mr. Jai Prakash that in the case of Benga Behera and Another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and Others (supra), it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the court granting Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed or probate must satisfy itself not only about the genuineness of the Will but also satisfy itself that it is not fraught with any suspicious circumstances and existence of suspicious circumstances itself may be held to be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the execution of the Will has not been duly made.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Arvind S/O Bhaurao Gangashettiwar And ... vs Smt. Indirabai W/O Balkrishna ... on 24 April, 2008

In 2007 vol.9 SCC 728 Benga Behera and Anr. v. Braja Kishore Nanda and Ors. , relied upon by Advocate Chavan, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that PW 9 had put his signature before testatrix had put thumb impression on the Will. He did not answer the requirement of attesting witnesses. It also found that he was not aware of any other person attesting the Will. It, therefore, held that 23 his evidence was insufficient to prove execution in writing. It is, therefore, obvious that as this person has placed his signature before hand and he was not aware about other persons attesting the Will, the view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Amita D/O Gurunath Deshpande vs Arvind S/O Shripad Deshpande on 30 August, 2019

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has explained the essentials as regards the attestation of a Will under section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and proof of such attestation under section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel about the propositions relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Verma v. Lagesh Saxena reported in (2017) 1 SCC page 257, or Kashibai v. Parvathi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 213 or Benga 44 Behera and others v. Braja Kishore Nanda and others reported in (2007) 9 SCC 728.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Satwanti vs Smt.Om Pati on 20 November, 2019

76. To "attest" is to bear witness to a fact - See Benga Behera v. Braja Kishore Nanda.25 The word attestation is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that "attested" in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature of mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. By attestation is meant the signing of a document to signify that the attestor is a witness to the execution of the document; and by Section 63(c) of the Act, an attesting witness is one who signs the document in the presence of the executant after seeing the execution 24 (1998) 3 SCC 384 25 (2007) 9 SCC 728 Page No. 36/42 of the document or after receiving a personal acknowledgement from the executant as regards the execution of the document. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intent to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishamber Nath Pandey vs M/S Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. ... on 29 August, 2023

While dealing with a case falling under clause (c) of Section 65 of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benga Behra v. Braja Kishore Nanda 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 240, wherein the Will was sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence, observed that it was obligatory on the part of first respondent to establish the loss of original will beyond all reasonable doubt. Since his testimony in this regard remained uncorroborated, therefore, photocopy could not be admitted as secondary evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next