Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)

Inder Chand Nayyar vs Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha And ... on 22 April, 1976

Till alive, the testator can always revoke the will because a will is an instrument of trust by a living person addressed in rem to be operative after his death. A will, be it registered or be it unregistered can be revoked by defacing the will, destroying the will or otherwise superseding the same. The second ground of challenge is equally frivolous because under Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on proof of a will the beneficiaries would be entitled to letters of administration with the will annexed. The decision cited on the point by Shri J.N. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant, namely, Inder Chand Nayar v. Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinadhi Sabha and Anr. if carefully read, holds against the appellant. Paras 8 and 9 of the said decision reveal that a beneficiary under a Will can be granted the letters of administration with will annexed. Para 11 and 12 of the decision shows that after holding that letters of administration with will annexed can be granted to a beneficiary, the Court further considered whether letters of administration can be granted to an association of individuals or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Vilas Pandurang Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2004

16. It is settled law that where the Court of original jurisdiction considers the entire evidence brought on record and while doing so does not ignore a material evidence or circumstance and does not consider irrelevant material or irrelevant circumstance, merely because two views are possible, the Appellate Court would not, on reappreciation of evidence hold that the other view i.e. the one not concluded by the Court of Original Jurisdiction would be a better view to be followed. (See the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Vilas Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra ) Perversity in the conclusion arrived at after appreciation of evidence would also be a ground available to challenge findings of fact recorded by the Court of Original Jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 28 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1