Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
S.R. Nanjundan (Deceased) vs S.R. Srikandan on 14 June, 2010 cites

H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958

In support of his contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 443 [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and Others] wherein Their Lordships were pleased to observe that if it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1203 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Sridevi & Ors vs Jayaraja Shetty & Ors on 28 January, 2005

17. Repelling the contention, Mr.M.S. Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel arguing for the respondent would contend that except taking his father to Sub-Registrar office there is no evidence on record to show that he engaged himself in any other affairs in the execution of the Will and hence it could not be considered to be a suspicious circumstance. To strengthen his argument, he cites Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in 2005 (2) L.W. 89 [Sridevi & others v. Jayaraja Shetty & Others] wherein it is observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 245 - Full Document

Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead)By Lrs vs A.J. Francis on 3 April, 2006

18. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants placed reliance upon a decision in AIR 2006 (SC)1895 [Joseph Antony Lazarus (D) by L.Rs. v. A.J. Francis] and argued that as observed therein the defendant has failed to examine the advocate who drafted the Will and the Sub-Registrar before whom the Will is said to have been presented for registration. In the said case, the attester examined to prove the Will is wife of the beneficiary and hence the Court has held that the non-examination of the advocate who drafted the will and the Sub-Registrar is fatal. But the facts in this case are otherwise. Attestor D.W.2 is an independent witness against whom no motive was attributed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 45 - A Kabir - Full Document

D. Kausalya, Wife Of Late Durai 16, ... vs S. Sankaran, 16, Manicka Naicken ... on 14 February, 2002

In a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2002 (1) CTC 650 [D. Kausalya v. S. Sankaran] it is observed that if the entire evidence is looked into, the respondent did not offer any acceptable explanation for the exclusion of the appellant from inheriting the property. In the absence of any detail with regard to the conduct of the appellant which drove the testator to exclude the appellant along with the unequal disposition of the property by the testator makes it clear that there exists suspicious circumstances which were not properly explained and got over by the respondent. But in this case the Will itself contains the reasons for exclusion of other sons and daughter. The testator himself has mentioned that his sons and daughter are well off that the defendant had been maintaining him and his wife and that he was desirous of giving the property to the defendant who is having a son. Hence, the exclusion of other heirs in the Will has been properly explained in the contents of the will itself.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - P D Premkumar - Full Document
1