Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)
Sh. K.C. Bajaj And Ors. vs Smt. Sudershan Kumari And Anr. on 11 April, 2008 cites

Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002

64. Same ethos was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage . In the said decision, the two witnesses were classmates of the beneficiary's son. The Court observed that the two attesting witnesses on account of being known to beneficiary's son, being his classmates, were known to the family, and therefore, were natural witness to be called to attest the execution of will. On account of their acquaintance with the family, they could have naturally known and identified the executant. Merely because of being classmates they would be interested in obliging their classmates mother so as to benefits her and go to the extent of falsely deposing is too far fetched an inference to draw.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 302 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Sh. K.L. Malhotra Through His Legal ... vs Smt. Sudershan Kumari And Anr. on 1 April, 2008

56. The next suspicious circumstance namely the feeble mind, frail health and weak eye sight of the testatrix, to my mind needs to be considered with reference to the law relating to a will. As noted in para 25 above, (refer para 32 quoted therein from the decision dated 1.04.2008 in FAO No. 289/1998 Shri K.L. Malhotra v. Sudershan Kumari). As the wills are too frequently made by the sick and dying, the degree of understanding and memory which the law requires is such as may be reasonably expected from persons in that condition. Therefore, it is wrong to suppose that those qualities of mind should be possessed by the testator in the highest degree, position or to the same extent as before the illness in order to enable him to validly make his will. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act requires that the testator should have a sound mind. The sound mind referred to does not mean that the testator should have his mental faculty in their fullest vigour, but means that he should have the capacity to understand the nature of his property; memory to remember the relations and persons normally having claims on his bounty and has also a judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 53 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (Since Deceased) ... vs Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Boseand ... on 16 February, 1962

As observed by their Lordships of Privy Council in the decision reported as Judah v. Isolyne , the fact that the testator was unwell when he executed the will is a long way from saying that he had no testamentary capacity. The testator does not have to be found in perfect state of health to have his will declared valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 110 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Prentice Hall India Pvt. Ltd. vs Prentice Hall Inc. And Ors. on 10 May, 2002

While making said observation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta's case (supra) quoted the observation of Lord Penzance in the decision reported as Hall v. Hall 1868 (1) P and D 481 "but all influences are not unlawful. Persuasion, appeals to the affections or ties of kindred, to a sentiment of gratitude for past services, or pity for future destitution, or the like - these are all legitimate and may be fairly pressed on a testator. On the other hand, pressure of whatever character, whether acting on the fears or the hopes, if so exerted as to overpower the volition without convincing the judgment, is a species of restraint under which no valid will can be made.... In a word, a testator may be led, but not driven; and his will must be the offspring of his own volition, and not the record of some one else's".
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Motibai Hormusji Kanga vs Jamsetji Hormusji Kanga on 30 November, 1923

It is not for the Court to find out justification or equity or otherwise in the action of the testator. It is not for the Court to make it fair or to sermonize. It is not for the Court to refuse the grant on account of the fact that the disposition is not just and fair or is unnatural or improbable when the conscience of the Court is clear about the proof of the execution of the will on the face of the evidence, satisfactorily sufficient, to remove the suspicious circumstances. As observed by Privy Council in the decision reported as Motibai Hormusjee Kanga v. Jamsetjee Hormusjee Kanga AIR 1924 PC 28 that A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Ramabai Padmakar Patil (D) Through Lrs. ... vs Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande And Ors on 14 August, 2003

65. The learned Trial Judge has held that by not adducing evidence on the preparation of the will a doubt was cast on the genuineness of the will. In this regards, suffice would it be to note that no evidence regarding the preparation of the will is not fatal to the genuineness of the will. Said view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Ramabai's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 109 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Indu Bala Bose & Ors vs Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr on 18 November, 1981

In taking this view, I am supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Ors. . In said decision, the objector to a will had contended that the fact that the draft of the will was not produced and no explanation had come forth as to what happened to the draft is a 'suspicious' circumstance. The Court after noting that it is not necessary that the draft of will is to be preserved held that the circumstance pointed out by the objector is not a suspicious circumstance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 234 - B Islam - Full Document
1   2 Next