Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Gurdial Kaur And Others vs Kartar Kaur And Others on 26 March, 1998
57. The law is well settled that the conscience of the
court must be satisfied whenever there is any suspicious
circumstances, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will
to dispel suspicious circumstances as held in case titled, Gurdial
Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others, 1998(4) SCC 384.
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
In view of the findings given on the abovesaid
issues and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of H. Venkatchala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma
(Supra), it is held that the Will dt. 1.10.1992 has not been proved
in accordance with law as the petitioner has failed to prove that
Ex.PW1/A was the genuine, valid and legal testament executed
by the deceased Madan Lal Arora. Hence the probate in favour of
the petitioner cannot be granted.
S. Amarjit Singh vs State & Ors. on 28 May, 1998
42. Genuineness of the Will is a question of fact
depending on appreciation of evidence. When the objector raises
plea of suspicion circumstances, the propounder will have to offer
cogent and convincing explanation as held in S. Amarjeet Singh
Vs. State, AIR 1999 Delhi, 33.
Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002
In Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba
Shedag, AIR 2002 SC 637, it has been held that the conscience
of the court has to be satisfied by the propounder of the Will
adducing evidence so as to dispel any suspicious or unnatural
circumstances attaching to a Will and the law of evidence does
not permit conjecture of suspicion having the place of legal proof.
Surinder Kumar Grover vs State & Ors on 24 January, 2011
56. In the instant case, I am of the view that the
PC01/09 24/31
petitioner has not led cogent and satisfactory evidence to remove
the suspicious circumstances which shrouded the Wills in
question in accordance with Section 63(c) of Indian Succession
Act nor the petitioner has been able to lead enough evidence to
prove the execution and attestation of the Wills in accordance with
the provision of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the
present matter there are grave suspicious circumstances which
have also not been cleared by the petitioner and the onus have
not been discharged to prove that the Will dated 01.10.1992 is free
from suspicion. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in case titled Surender
Kumar Grover Vs. State & others, 177 (2011) DLT .
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State Of U.P on 4 August, 2011
In another case Rafiq Vs. State 1990 SCC 946, it
was observed as under: