Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.38 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shri Ramesh Chand vs Suresh Chand & Anr. on 9 April, 2012
In my opinion, the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Kashibai & Anr. (supra), and various
other judgments which deal with the issue of requirement of
a Will having to be proved by summoning of an attesting
witness, are judgments given in those cases where there are
inter se disputes between the legal heirs of a deceased
testator and the validity of the Will is questioned in those
circumstances. Observations in the said judgments cannot
Suit No. 174/14 (Old Suit No. 212/08) Page No. 34/47
have application to be facts of those cases where the disputes
with regard to Will are not classical disputes between the
legal heirs of the deceased testator and the Will is an
instrument which really furthered an intent to transfer the
rights in an immovable property by the testator to the
beneficiary. I may note that in the present case, there is
absolutely no cross examination at all on behalf of the
appellant when the registered Will was proved and exhibited
in the statement of the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff as PW1.
Once there is no crossexamination, in the cases such as the
present, which are different than the classical disputes inter
se the legal heirs of a deceased testator, I would feel that the
Will should be held to be a proved document inasmuch as
the object of the Will in cases such as the present was really
to transfer rights in an immovable property after the death of
the testator. Further, I may note that the observations with
respect to Will having to be very strictly proved by calling
the attesting witness are in probate cases where the
judgment is a judgment in rem whereas in the present case
the judgment on the basis of ownership rights devolving
upon the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff under a Will will not be
a judgment in rem but only a judgment interse the parties.
Suit No. 174/14 (Old Suit No. 212/08) Page No. 35/47
Also another aspect to be borne in mind is that besides the
two sons of the deceased Sh. Kundan Lal, who were the
plaintiff and defendant no.1 in the suit, the other legal heirs
of the deceased Sh. Kundan Lal were very much in
knowledge of the present litigation but they never chose to
add themselves as parties. Whereas the other son i.e the
brother of the parties to the present suit, Sh. Ram Swaroop
deposed in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff as PW2, the
only daughter of the deceased Sh. Kundan Lal namely Smt.
Krishna deposed in favour of the appellant/defendant no.1 as
DW2. Therefore, all the interested parties, who would
claim any benefit in the suit property, were aware of the
subject litigation.
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bharat Kumar vs Ashok Sahdev & Ors on 9 September, 2013
In the authority titled as Bharat Kumar
and Ors. Vs. Ashok Sehdev and Ors. cited as 2013(138) DRJ 99, it has
been categorically held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that para no.
26 of the judgment cited as 2012 (1) SCC 656 clearly states that the
judgment is prospective and not retrospective and the said judgment is
not intending to unsettle transactions which had taken place in the past.
Section 202 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has dealt with the ratio of the
authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Suraj Lamp and
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana in the abovestated authority
titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. The Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi has categorically held in the above stated authority that
the object of giving validity to a power of attorney given for
consideration even after the death of the executants is to ensure that
entitlement under such power of attorney remains because the same is not
a regular or a routine power of attorney but the same had the elements of
a commercial transaction which cannot be allowed to be frustrated on
account of death of the executant of the power of the attorney. In the case
in hand as well, the dispute about the Will is not a dispute interse
between the legal heirs of the deceased testator. As such, I am of the
opinion that the requirement of the proof of a Will by the attesting
witnesses is not to be insisted upon as has been held by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in the abovesaid authority. I have no hesitation to hold
that on the basis of the documents, certainly the plaintiff no.1 has a better
Suit No. 174/14 (Old Suit No. 212/08) Page No. 44/47
title whereas the case of the defendants is that of no title.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Asha M. Jain vs The Canara Bank And Ors. on 15 October, 2001
"34 The Division Bench of this Court in Asha
M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank 94(2001) DLT 841:2002 (61) DRJ
101(DB) had held that judicial notice has to be taken of the
practice prevalent in the city of Delhi of sale/purchase of
leasehold properties through the medium of Agreement to
Sell coupled with the delivery of possession in part
performance, thereof, powers of attorney, Wills etc.