Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)
Smt. Maya Devi vs The State on 17 November, 2015 cites

Smt.Guro vs Atma Singh And Ors on 5 March, 1992

39 Further the Apex court held in Smt. Guro Vs Atma Singh & Ors {(1992)2 SCR 30}, that " With regard to proof of a will, the law is well- settled that the mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed in the case of a will by section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there were suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will could be accepted as genuine. Such suspicious circumstances may be a shaky signatures, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of property or the propounder himself taking a leader part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the propunder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 100 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Meenakshiammal (Dead) Through Lrs & ... vs Chandrasekaran & Another on 3 November, 2004

"Will being a document has to be proved by primary evidence except where the court permits a document to be proved by leading secondary evidence. Since it is required to be attested, as provided in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. In addition, it has to satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In order to assess as to whether the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document, the propounder has to show that the Will was signed by the testator and that he had put his signatures to the testament of his own free will; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and that the testator had signed it in the presence of two witnesses who attested it in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. But where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to remove the suspicion by leading appropriate evidence. The burden to prove that the Will was forged or that it was obtained under undue influence or coercion or by playing a fraud is on the person who alleges it to be so." [Emphasis supplied] Yet again in Meenakshiammal ( Dead) Through & Ors. Vs Chandrasekaran & Anr. [(2005) 1 SCC 280], it was stated that :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Sm. Chinmoyee Saha vs Debendra Lal Saha And Ors. on 27 July, 1984

"In the case of Chinmoyee Saha Vs Debendra Lal Saha it has been held that "if the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will, which confers a substantial benefit on him, the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. Once the propounder proves that the will was signed by the testator, that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature out of his own free will, and that he signed it in presence of the witnesses who attested it in his presence, the onus, which rests on the propounder, is discharged and when allegation of undue influence, fraud or coercion is made by the caveator, the onus is on the caveator to prove the same."
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 35 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next