Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.88 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 384 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002
Even if their version that Joothar Singh was not keeping good health was believed, then also no inference could be drawn that the said Joothar Singh was not in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the said will. Apart from the fact that the witness Tarachand had specifically stated in his evidence that Joothar Singh was absolutely in sound state of his mind when he came along with Shishupal Singh and other persons at his place for scribing the will, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said Joothar Singh was not in sound state of his mind two three years prior to his death. The court has also found substance in the submission of Mr. Agrawal for the respondent No.1 that the said will having been executed in the year 1976 and the evidence having been recorded in the year 1984-85 they were bound to be certain minor discrepancies in their evidence, which should not be given undue weightage in view of the cogent evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding the execution and genuineness of the will. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhukar D. Shende v/s Tarabai Aba Shedage (supra), the law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish of fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict.