Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.32 seconds)H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
"4. The principles which govern the proving of a will are well
settled; (see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma,
AIR1959SC443 and Rani Purnima Devi v. Khagendra Narayan
Dev, [1962]3SCR195).The mode of proving a will does not
ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document
except as to the special requirement of attestation 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 the signature of
the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the
onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the
onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of
the court before the court accepts the will as genuine. Where the
caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus
CS(OS) 2186/2011 & TEST.CAS. 45/2012 Page 26 of 43
is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas
but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the
propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The
suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the
signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the
dispositions made in the will being unnatural improbable or
unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be
other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was
not free. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all
legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the
document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the
propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which
confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance
to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to
remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the
propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances
the court would grant probate, even if the will might be
unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. It is
in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider
whether the appellants have succeeded in establishing that the
will was duly executed and attested."
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2013
67. Marriage and family are social institutions of vital
importance. Alienation of affection, in that context, is an
intentional tort, as held by this Court in Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal case [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat,
(2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 801] , which gives a cause of action to the wife and
children of the respondent to sue the appellant for alienating the
husband/father from the company of his wife/children, knowing
fully well they are legally wedded wife/children of the
respondent.
Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya & Ors on 15 January, 2008
Reference may also be made to the
judgments of this Court in Badri Prasad v. Director of
Consolidation [(1978) 3 SCC 527]
and Tulsa v. Durghatiya [(2008) 4 SCC 520].
Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon vs Hardyal Singh Dhillon And Ors on 12 October, 2007
46. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the question of title cannot
be examined in probate proceedings. Relying upon Kanwarjeet Singh
Dhillon (supra) and other judgments, the learned counsel argued that the
grant of probate is only conclusive of validity of Will and the Court is not
competent to determine the question of title of suit property and therefore,
the Court should not go into the question whether the suit properties
bequeathed by the Will were HUF properties or self acquired properties of
the Testator. Learned counsel for the Objector, on the other hand, has argued
that the suit property and the Hauz Khas property were HUF properties and
the Testator did not have the capacity to write a Will for the entire HUF
property. The learned counsel further argued that even though explanation
appended to Section 30 allows a Hindu Male to dispose of his interest in the
HUF property by a Will, however, under the Will in question, the bequest
has been made of the entire HUF properties which are contrary to Section 6
of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.
Al. Pr. Ranganathan Chettiar vs Al. Pr. Al. Periakaruppan Chettiar(And ... on 24 May, 1957
28. The use of the term 'Wife' by the Testator before the name of the
Petitioner would not invalidate the Will even if the marriage between the
Testator and the Petitioner was found to be void or irregular or invalid. The
question of validity of the Will should be decided by applying the principles
of harmonious construction and a comprehensive reading of the Will which
shows that the intention of the Testator was to bequeath the properties in
favour of the Petitioner in her individual capacity and not as being the wife
CS(OS) 2186/2011 & TEST.CAS. 45/2012 Page 21 of 43
of the Testator. There is specific mention in the Will regarding the reasons
for disinheriting the Objectors. This is evident for the phrase/ expression
"my divorced wife and my daughter" used while excluding them from the
Will. The Petitioner also argued that doctrine of persona designate is also
applicable and the Court should look into the Will and notice that the
intended beneficiary of the bequest is not the "Wife" but the Petitioner.
Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of
AL. PR. Ranganathan Chettiar v. AL. PR. AL. Periakaruppan Chettiar
AIR 1957 SC 815.
Siddaramappa And Ors. vs Smt. Gouravva on 9 December, 2003
29. It was further argued that even if the issues pertaining to the validity of
marriage and proof of divorce are decided in favour of the Respondents, yet
the Petitioner would be entitled to the probate on the basis of the doctrine of
persona designata. The designation attributed to the Petitioner would be
sufficient under the aforesaid doctrine, even if the marriage is found to be
invalid in the eyes of the law. The bequest would still be good in law. The
Court should not delve into the nature and contents of the bequest being
beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. On this subject, the learned counsel for
the Petitioner has relied upon the following judgments Smt. Uttami v. Shri
Ram Dass, ILR 1973 2 HP 962and Siddaramappa v. Smt. Gouravva AIR
2004 Kant 230.
Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors vs T.C. Sidhan (Dead) on 11 December, 2003
39. There is another factor that gives rise to suspicious circumstances. The
Will is unnatural, as it completely cuts off the wife and children. The
Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), held:
Surendra Pal & Ors vs Saraswati Arora & Anr on 9 August, 1974
The Court shall put itself in the Testator's arm chair
(Surendra Pal v. Saraswati Arora (Dr), (1974) 2 SCC 600). The onus of
proving the Will is on the propounder. In case of suspicious circumstances
surrounding the execution of the Will, it is necessary for the propounder to
satisfy the Court on all such aspects before the Court would accept the Will
as genuine.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
The constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar
Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529, succinctly laid the
position in law relating to mode of proving a Will in the following words:-