Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)
T.Shanmugasundaram vs Smt.Palaniammal on 19 January, 2026 cites

D. Kausalya, Wife Of Late Durai 16, ... vs S. Sankaran, 16, Manicka Naicken ... on 14 February, 2002

23. A Division Bench of this Court in D.Kausalya Vs. S.Sankaran (cited supra) has held that when the Executor of will did not state anything to show that there was strained relationship between testator and eldest daughter and giving preference to one heir and excluding another branch will constitute suspicious circumstance and such suspicion should be 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:59:13 pm ) A.S.No.747 of 2018 dislodged by the propounder.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Dr.Shantha vs Sharada on 5 November, 2003

When the above suspicious circumstances are inherent in the entire transaction, we are not inclined to believe the Will particularly due to exclusion of aged wife who was also ailing. That apart, when there is no strained relationship between the testator and the other son, who is also suffering from cancer, excluding him from any of the properties also creates serious doubt about the Will. Therefore, merely because the execution and attestation stated to have been proved through the evidence of Dws 2 and 3, as the propounder has not discharged his burden dispelling the above suspicious circumstances pointed out by us we are not in a position to accept that Ex.B1-Will is a genuine document validly executed by the testator. We are also of the view that the facts of the case in Dr.Shantha Vs. Sharada (cited supra) referred to by the learned counsel for appellants does not come to his aid.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - N Dhinakar - Full Document
1