Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.40 seconds)Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
The judgment in the case of Gopal Krishnaji ( supra) is of no help of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
The judgment in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar ( supra) relied by the learned counsel for the appellants is with reference to Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act to prove a will. In the present set of facts the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment has well considered the facts and evidence on record and applied settled principles of law for proving a will and correctly found the will to be valid one.
Pushpavathi And Ors. vs Chandraraja Kadamba And Ors. on 23 August, 1972
(viii) Pushpavathi and others Vs. Chandraraja Kadamba and others, AIR 1973 (3) SCC 291,
Ramchandra Rambux vs Champabai And Others on 17 February, 1964
27. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Rambux (supra) relied by the appellants for the proposition of surrounding suspicious circumstances is well settled but it has to be applied on the facts of each case. We have come to the conclusion that on the facts of the present case and evidence on record the will in question is quite genuine and valid. Thus this judgment is of no help to the appellants. The next judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Singh London Trained Cutter Johri Bazar Jaipur relied by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case the court has found the evidence of plaintiff PW-3, the PW-4 and PW-7 to be far from satisfactory.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Sridevi & Ors vs Jayaraja Shetty & Ors on 28 January, 2005
33. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. [See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 and Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 784]. Subject to above, proof of a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document."