Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.42 seconds)Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
10. There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature and
standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those decisions have
been reviewed in an elaborate judgment of this Court in
R. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thirnmajamma and
Ors.[1959] Su.1 S.C.R. 426. The Court, speaking through
Gajendragadkar J., laid down in that case the following
propositions:-
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Indu Bala Bose & Ors vs Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr on 18 November, 1981
16. Nextly, learned counsel referred to the decision in Smt. Indu
Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another7,
6
1995 Supp(2) SCC 664
7
(1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 20
21
BSB, J
A.S.No.316 of 2012
wherein the meaning of suspicious circumstance is discussed as any
and every circumstance is not a "suspicious" circumstance. A
circumstance would be "suspicious" when it is not normal or is not
normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal
person. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the other
portions of the decision in the cited case, wherein the previous
decisions are discussed and relevant to the facts of the present case.
They run from paragraphs 9 to 14 and after discussing the evidence on
record, it was found that no suspicious circumstances existed in that
case. Further, the Supreme Court mentioned the rule, as observed by
the Privy Council, that "where a Will is charged with suspicion, the
rules enjoin a reasonable skepticism, not an obdurate persistence in
disbelief. They do not demand from the judge, even in circumstances
of grave suspicion, a resolute ad impenetrable incredulity. He is never
required to close his mind to the truth.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
21. The rules of interpretation of will are well settled as stated by the
Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra. The burden of
dispelling the suspicious circumstance is on the propounder of the will.
(Vide decision in Sashi Kumar Banerjee (supra). Thus, it is not just
a compliance of the requirement under Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act for proving the will is enough, besides, that the
propounder has to discharge the onus of proving the will by dispelling
the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
The Supreme Court observed that the onus of proving the will is on the
24
BSB, J
A.S.No.316 of 2012
propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances
surrounding execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and
the signature of the attestor as required by law is sufficient to
discharge the onus. Thus, it contemplates that absence of suspicious
circumstances is an indispensible element to hold that a will is said to
have been proved by considering the proof of testamentary capacity
and signature of the attestor in proof as per law. Unlike in the other
documents, the proof of will requires elimination of the suspicious
circumstances. In the present case, though one of the attestors is
examined and he speaks of execution of the will by the attestor in a
sound and disposing state of mind, his evidence and the evidence of
the scribe must be read to believe their veracity, in the light of the
circumstances which are pointed to be suspicious by the appellant.
Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors vs T.C. Sidhan (Dead) on 11 December, 2003
18. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi
Nambiar v. T.C.Sidhan9, wherein the etiological expression of the will
is discussed apart from discussing the interpretation of the Will.
V. T. S. Chandarasekhara Mudaliar ... vs Kulandaivelu Mudaliar And Others on 26 April, 1962
19. With regard to adoption, he placed reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in V. T. S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar (since
deceased) and after him his legal representatives and others v.
Kulandaivelu Mudaliar and others10, wherein at paragraph No.20,
the object of adoption by a widow is stated to be two-fold, namely, (1)
to secure the performance of the funeral rites of the person to whom
the adoption is made as well as to offer pindas to that person and his
ancestors, and (2) to preserve the continuance of his lineage.
Therefore, he submitted that the deceased intended to adopt the
plaintiff solely with this object and to protect the interests of his wife,
2nd defendant, by adopting the plaintiff so that he would provide her
help and assistance throughout her life. He further submitted that
since the deceased proposed adoption of the plaintiff, the entire
property in 'A' schedule was given to him and therefore, the 2nd
defendant need not worry about her maintenance and expenses and
thus, there is no suspicious circumstance which is because, she is
9
(2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 321
10
(1963) 2 SCR 440
23
BSB, J
A.S.No.316 of 2012
excluded from 'A' schedule property. Insofar as proof of ill-health of
the deceased is concerned, he referred to the evidence on record and
submitted that there is no surprise that the deceased executed Will in
favour of the plaintiff due to his ill-health.