Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.07 seconds)
Smt.Guro vs Atma Singh And Ors on 5 March, 1992 cites

H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958

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 signature, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of 35 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 propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors., [1959] Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1203 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1