Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
V.Kalaivani vs M.R.Elangovan on 2 January, 2004 cites

Irudayammal And Ors. vs Salayath Mary on 1 August, 1972

(d) The Division Bench of this Court further held that when the 12/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.37 of 2021 & Tr.CS.No.14 of 2023 defendants in that case had alleged active participation and dominant role of the propounder in execution of the Will was a serious suspicious circumstance, when the Testatrix therein survived for six years after the said execution of the Will, the reasonable inference that could be drawn was that even if the beneficiary had participated in the execution of the Will, it was brought about only at the instance of the Testator and would not create any shadow of doubt about the genuineness of the Will.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Smt.Janaki vs Dr.Vasantha R on 30 June, 1999

(a). Janaki Devi Vs. R.Vasanthi and others, reported in 2005 (1) CTC Page 61 where a Division Bench of this Court held that when the Will is a registered Will, it is not necessary to give positive evidence to prove that the Testatrix did see the attesting witnesses put their signatures or that the attesting witness saw the Testatrix signed document and where there is proof of signature, everything else is implied till the contrary is proved. It is also further held in the said decision that in the absence of witnesses who are either dead or cannot brought to Court or cannot recollect the facts, then secondary evidence is permitted.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1