Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.21 seconds)Section 263 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
N. Ramaswamy Padayachi vs C. Ramaswami Padayachi And Ors. on 19 February, 1974
51. To the same effect is the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of N. Ramaswamy Padayachi v. C. Ramaswamy Padayachi, . The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, by relying on the decision of Bombay High Court referred to above, held that where a gift deed, signed by the donor, was attested by two witnesses but it is not proved that each of the attesting witnesses saw the other attesting witness sign in his presence, the evidence of one of the attesting witnesses is not sufficient to prove the execution of the gift deed. (See paragraph 3)
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam on 17 December, 2002
In a recent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kodm, , Section 63(c) of the said Act and Sections 68 and 71 of the Evidence Act came up for consideration. Considering these provisions, the learned Judges held that the requirement of execution of Will under Section 63(c) of the said Act is its attestation by two or more witnesses and this is mandatory. The learned Judges also held that on a combined reading of Section 63 of the said Act and 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that the person propounding the Will has to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed and that cannot be done by simply proving the signature of the testator on the Will. It must also be proved that the attestation was properly done under Section 63 of the Act. But if the Will is to be proved by one attesting witness, in that case that attesting witness in his evidence has to satisfy the attestation of the Will by him and also by the other attesting witnesses in order to prove that there was due execution of the Will. But if one attesting witness does not satisfy the requirement of attestation of the Will by the other attesting witness in that case it falls short of attestation of the Will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the Will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator, it means fulfilling the requirement under Section 63 of the Succession Act. (See paragraphs 9 &10)
Bisseswar Poddar vs Nabadwip Chandra Poddar And Anr. on 11 July, 1960
54. On the question of signature it is well-settled that the Court can use its own eyes in addition to the handwriting expert's evidence or even in the absence of such expert evidence on the point. (Please see the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bisseswar Poddar v. Nabadwip Poddar, reported in 64 CWN 1067, at page 1080).
S.Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 July, 1996
56. The learned Counsel for the appellant has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, . The learned Counsel relied on the said judgment in order to contend that the expert evidence is a weak type of evidence and Court should not consider it as conclusive and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent corroboration. The aspect on expert evidence was considered in that case in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment. In paragraph 26 of the judgment, the evidence of the expert has been quoted. From the excerpts of the evidence of the expert, as quoted in the said paragraph, it appears that the opinion of the expert was not definite and the expert has stated that no definite opinion can be given on the basis of the materials produced before him and opined that extensive admitted writings are required for offering definite opinion. But in the instant case the opinion of the expert, as pointed out above, is a definite opinion and the expert was given extensive admitted writings. Therefore, factually speaking, both the cases are not on the same footing. In the instant case the evidence of the expert, is very definite and which could not be shaken in cross-examination, that is also corroborated by the opinion of the Court. In that view of the matter the ratio in the case of S. Gopal Reddy is not of much relevance.
Manorama Chowdhurani vs Shiva Sundari Mozumdar on 6 July, 1914
61. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on two judgments in support of his contention that the revocation proceedings are vitiated by waiver and acquiescence. Reliance was first placed on a decision reported in a case of Manorama Chowdhurani v. Shiva Sundari Mazumdar, reported in ILR 42 Calcutta 480. The principle decided in the said case does not support the contention of the appellant. In the said case it has been decided that neither acquiescence nor lapse of time are, by themselves, operative as a bar to a proceeding for revocation of Probate Court has to see that if such revocation proceedings are filed belatedly, the proceedings must be bona fide and there must be some reasonable explanation for the delay. The facts in the case of Manorama were that the Will was made in 1883 and the probate was taken out in 1884, the disposition of the Will was being worked out and acted upon. Thereafter a suit for account was filed in 1909 and in 1910 the objector filed a proceeding by alleging that the Will was forged and the probate was fraudulently obtained. In that case the proceedings were initiated after about 26 years and there was no explanation for the delay. On those facts, the learned Judges found that the application was not bona fide. But, same is not the factual position here. Therefore, in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the revocation proceeding is either barred by unreasonable delay or by the principles of waiver or acquiescence.
Anil Behari Ghosh vs Smt. Latika Bala Dassi And Others on 15 April, 1955
In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi, , it has been held that omission to issue citation to persons, who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may well be, in a normal case, by itself, a ground for revocation of the Probate. But, the learned Judges have said that the proposition is not absolute and has further added that the law has vested a judicial discretion on the Court to revoke a grant where the Court may have prima facie reasons to believe that, in the facts of the case, it was necessary to have the Will proved afresh in the presence of interested parties (see paragraph 16).