Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Section 18 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors vs T.C. Sidhan (Dead) on 11 December, 2003
28. Mr.Narsimha, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the natural heirs were excluded and legally wedded wife was given a lesser share and, therefore, it has to be held to be a suspicious circumstance. We are unable to countenance the said submission. The circumstances of depriving the natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to be interfered in the normal line of succession and so natural heirs would be debarred in every case of the Will. It may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and some cases partly. This is the view taken by this Court in Uma Devi Nambiar and Others vs. T.C.Sidhan (Dead) (2004) 2 SCC 321 = 2004-2-L.W.852.
V. Rajavelu Udayar (Died) And Ors. vs Chandrasekaran And Anr. on 13 January, 1999
(ii)2005(1) SCC 280 [Meenakshiammal (Dead) through LRs. and others vs. Chandrasekaran and another]
Indu Bala Bose & Ors vs Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr on 18 November, 1981
Asber Reuben Samson And Others vs Eillah Solomon And Others on 24 April, 1990
(viii)AIR 1991 Bom. 148 [Asber Reuben Samson and others v. Eillah Solomon and others]
Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors on 18 April, 2006
Corra Vedachalam Chetty, 17, Old No. 45, ... vs G. Janakiraman on 10 April, 2001
16. Among the aforesaid decisions, one of the decisions reported in 2001(3)CTC 283 [Corra Vedachalam Chetty and another vs. G.Jankiraman) is on the point that the Court while analysing the Will is acting as a Court of conscience. An excerpt from the above said decision would run thus: