Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
52. The respondents rely on the decision reported as H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.
Thimmajamma 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426, Rani Purnima Debi v. Khagendra Narayan Deb AIR 1962
SC 567 and Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kanwar AIR 1977 SC 63. It is argued that the mere
disinhereitance of Rajiv may not be sufficient to qualify as a suspicious circumstance. Yet, that,
coupled with the circumstance that the two daughters were not provided for in the will, one of
whom (Rashmi) was disabled, and admitted to the Cheshire home, and the other of young and
of marriageable age, drew a question mark on the genuineness of the will, since the evidence
had disclosed that the testator cared for and was worried for his daughter. The mention that he
hoped that the two sons, including Rajiv would care for their sisters, was unnatural, since Rajiv
had been denied any meaningful inheritance in the will.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Seth Beni Chand (Since Dead) Now By L.Rs vs Smt. Kamla Kunwar And Others on 14 September, 1976
52. The respondents rely on the decision reported as H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.
Thimmajamma 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426, Rani Purnima Debi v. Khagendra Narayan Deb AIR 1962
SC 567 and Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kanwar AIR 1977 SC 63. It is argued that the mere
disinhereitance of Rajiv may not be sufficient to qualify as a suspicious circumstance. Yet, that,
coupled with the circumstance that the two daughters were not provided for in the will, one of
whom (Rashmi) was disabled, and admitted to the Cheshire home, and the other of young and
of marriageable age, drew a question mark on the genuineness of the will, since the evidence
had disclosed that the testator cared for and was worried for his daughter. The mention that he
hoped that the two sons, including Rajiv would care for their sisters, was unnatural, since Rajiv
had been denied any meaningful inheritance in the will.
Mrs. Joyce Primrose Prestor(Nee Vas) vs Miss Vera Marie Vas & Ors on 12 April, 1996
The strong presumption of validity in favour of
holograph wills has also been noted by the courts in Joyce Primrose Prestor v. Vera Marie Vas,
(1996) 9 SCC 324, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 and
Ramakant Chaturvedi v. MC Chatruvedi, 94 (2001) DLT 511.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
The strong presumption of validity in favour of
holograph wills has also been noted by the courts in Joyce Primrose Prestor v. Vera Marie Vas,
(1996) 9 SCC 324, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 and
Ramakant Chaturvedi v. MC Chatruvedi, 94 (2001) DLT 511.
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam on 17 December, 2002
48/1983 Page 26
evidence until one attesting witness at least has been examined for the purpose of proving its
due execution if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and subject to the process
of the court. Therefore, it is imperative that one attesting witness has to be examined and he
(or she) should be in a position to prove the execution of a will. The sole attesting witness so
examined, should be able to establish the attestation of a will by him and the other attesting
witness for proving there was due execution of the will. (See Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan
Namdeo Kadam (2003) 2 SCC 91; Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kanwar AIR 1977 SC 63; H.
Venkatachala Iyengar (supra)). The first task of the court is to, therefore, see whether the
plaintiff proves that the will was not executed in accordance with law.
Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985
The Supreme Court, in Ram
Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, (1985) Supp SCC 611, prescribed the parameters for the admissibility of
tape recorded statements. It held that the voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker
of the record or other persons recognizing his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the
voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged
speaker. The accuracy of the tape recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the
record by satisfactory evidence: direct or circumstantial. The possibility of tampering with, or
erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must be totally excluded. Moreover, the
tape recorded statement must be relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act and the
voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by
other sounds or disturbances.
Surendra Pal & Ors vs Saraswati Arora & Anr on 9 August, 1974
In Surendra Pal v. Dr. Saraswati Arora 1974 (2) SCC 600; Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur
1998 (4) SCC 384, etc. Court emphasized that usually it is the cumulative effect, rather than a
TEST CAS. 48/1983 Page 31
stray circumstance, which would weigh in concluding that a will is shrouded in suspicion.
Ultimately, it is the conscience of the court, which should be satisfied that the will is a genuine
document, and expresses what is intended by the testatrix or testator, apart from being
satisfied that the technical legal requirements mandated by the joint operation of Section 63 of
the Succession Act, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, are fulfilled.