Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Kathrikutty vs Pappoo on 15 March, 2005 cites

John Vallamattom And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 21 July, 2003

17. The bequeath to charity shall have to be sustained in the light of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act being declared as unconstitutional in the decision in John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, 2003(3) KLT 66 = (2003) 6 SCC 611. When there is a provision bequeathing certain property of the testator for charitable purpose, necessarily that is a matter for the executor to execute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 107 - V N Khare - Full Document

C.G. David Tharakan vs Dr. Mrs. Lily Jacob on 16 July, 1992

6. It is contended on behalf of the appellants in MFA No. 1055/94 that a reading of Ext.A2 Will discloses that the testator had acknowledged Ext.A1 Will. But the content of Ext.A1 discloses that if any modification thereof was required the testator had intended to get back Ext.A1 from the registry where it has been deposited and to make necessary modification thereof. So the cancellation of Ext.A1 by Ext. A2 is not proper. It is further contended, relying on the decision reported in David Tharakan v. Lilly Jacob, 1992 (2) KLT 426, that going by Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act no Will can be cancelled; it can alone be revoked. What is intended by Ext.A2 is the cancellation of Ext.A1 Will and such cancellation cannot hold good in the light of Section 70. So Ext.A1 still survives. It is further contended that the propounder of Ext.A2 will has not discharged his burden with regard to the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the appellants and other contesting respondents before the learned Single Judge.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1