Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
27. One of the celebrated decisions relied by this Court on proof of a
Will, reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 is in the case of H. Venkatachala
Iyenger vs. B. N. Thimmajamma, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has clearly distinguished the nature of proof required for a testament as
opposed to any other document. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under: -
Section 59 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Kalyan Singh, London Trained, ... vs Smt. Chhoti And Ors on 1 December, 1989
19. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, Rajkumar Saha
placed reliance of two judgments passed in the case of Kalyan Singh,
London Trained, Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Chhoti and
10
Ors.3 and H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B. N. Thimmajamma and
Ors.4 in support of his submissions.
Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur & Ors on 25 October, 1976
28. Similarly, in Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and others [1977 1
SCC 369], the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that when a Will is
allegedly shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis
between the plaintiff and the defendant. What generally is an adversarial
proceeding, becomes in such cases, a matter of the Court's conscience
and then, the true question which arises for consideration is, whether,
the evidence let in by the propounder of the Will is such as would satisfy
the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the
testator. It is impossible to reach such a satisfaction unless the party
which sets up the Will offers cogent and convincing explanation with
regard to any suspicious circumstance surrounding the making of the
Will.
Section 276 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008
29. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kak v. Sharada
Raje, [(2008) 7 SCC 695], held and opined that the Court is required to
adopt a rational approach and is furthermore required to satisfy its
conscience as existence of suspicious circumstances plays an important
role, holding: