Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)The Powers-Of-Attorney Act, 1882
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Motibai Hormusji Kanga vs Jamsetji Hormusji Kanga on 30 November, 1923
In the light of what has been stated if the various requirements of
a valid Will are established, then as observed by the Privy
Council in Motibai Hormusjee Kanga's case at p. 33:
Kavita Kanwar vs Mrs. Pamela Mehta on 19 May, 2020
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta,
reported in (2021) 11 SCC 209 has held as under :
Shivakumar vs Sharanabasappa on 24 April, 2020
24.8. We need not multiply the references to all and other
decisions cited at the Bar, which essentially proceed on the
aforesaid principles while applying the same in the given set of
facts and circumstances. Suffice would be to point out that in a
recent decision in Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, this Court,
after traversing through the relevant decisions, has summarised
the principles governing the adjudicatory process concerning
proof of a will as follows : (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12)
"12. ... 12.1. Ordinarily, a will has to be proved like any other
document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the
satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing
the proof of other documents, in the case of will too, the proof
with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon.
12.2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will is
required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at
least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of
proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and
capable of giving evidence.
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
29. So far as the execution of sale deed in favour of Smt. Usha Jain by a
holder of unregistered Power of Attorney is concerned, the Appellants
have not filed any counter claim seeking cancellation of sale deeds
executed by Govaiyabai in favour of Smt. Usha. Further more, the
Counsel for the Appellant could not point out as to how the execution of a
sale deed by a holder of unregistered power of attorney would be bad. The
Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v.
State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 has held as under :
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005
In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005)12 SCC 77
this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 & 101, paras 13 & 52)
"13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by
Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of
attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal
in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the
affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority
upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by
the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to
use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and
subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same
shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as
is well known, a document of convenience.