Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 71 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Jagdish Chand Sharma vs Narain Singh Saini (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors on 1 May, 2015
In Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini and Ors.(Supra),
the Supreme Court has clearly observed as under: -
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 15 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors on 19 December, 2008
"22. The question which, thus, arises for
consideration is as to whether execution of the Will
has been proved. In our opinion, it has not been.
The requirements for proving a Will have been laid
down in a large number of decisions. We would,
however, refer to only a few of them.
Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008
2 4 .Yet again, recently in Anil Kak v. Kumari
Sharada Raje and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2195, it was
opined:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Ajax Products Ltd. Through Its ... on 8 October, 1964
Such a sanction would not only be incompatible
with the scheme of Section 63 of the Act read
with Section 68 of the 1872 Act but also would be
extinctive of the paramountcy and sacrosanctity
thereof, a consequence, not legislatively intended. If
the evidence of the witnesses produced by the
propounder is inherently worthless and lacking in
credibility, Section 71of Act 1872 cannot be invoked to
bail him (propounder) out of the situation to facilitate
a roving pursuit. In absence of any touch of
truthfulness and genuineness in the overall approach,
this provision, which is not a substitute of Section
63 (c) of the Act and Section 68 of the 1872 Act, cannot
be invoked to supplement such failed speculative
endeavour
45.2 Section 71 of the 1872 Act, even if assumed to be
akin to a proviso to the mandate contained in Section
63 of the Act and Section 68 of the 1872 Act, it has to
be assuredly construed harmoniously therewith and
not divorced therefrom with a mutilative bearing. This
underlying principle is inter alia embedded in the
decision of this Court in the Commission of Income
Tax, Madras Appellant v. Ajax Products Limited
Respondent AIR 1965, Supreme Court 1358."