Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.20 seconds)Section 40 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And Another on 22 August, 1961
In this
connection, reference may be made to the decision of this
court in Rani Purnima Debi Vs. Kumar Khugendra Narayan
Deb. Air 1962 SC 567. It has been held in the said decision
that if a Will being registered and having regard to the other
circumstances, is accepted to be a genuine, the mere fact
that the Will is a registered Will it will not by itself be
sufficient to dispel all suspicious regarding the validity of
the Will where suspicious exist. It has been held that the
broad statement of witness that he had witnesses the testator
admitting execution of the Will was not sufficient to dispel
suspicious regarding due execution and attestation of the
Will. It has been specifically held that registration of the
Will by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion.
Relying on an earlier decision of this court reported in AIR
1959 SC 443, it has been held in the said decision that
where the propounder was unable to dispel the suspicious
circumstances which surrounded the question of valid
execution and attestation of the Will, no letters of
administration in favour of the propounder could be
granted.
Vijay Kumar Mundhra vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 May, 1972
In this context, the counsel for the petitioner had
PC No. 43/11 Page 6 of 8
relied upon Section 40 of the Indian Registration Act and also placed
reliance on the judgment in Vijay Kumar Mehra Vs. State & Others 2008
II AD (Delhi) 272 wherein it is observed in respect of the above stated
circumstance in the following words :