Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.27 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Section 281 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 71 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Jasdeep Kaur vs Bhupinder Singh on 13 January, 2017
67. Findings on Issue no. 3
At the outset it is admitted case of the parties that
respondent no. 2 had filed a partition suit titled Jagdeep Kaur Vs
Bhupinder Singh & Anr, bearing No. 231/08 pending in the court
of Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar, the then Ld. ADJ till 11.05.2015 and
transferred to this court on 14.05.2015 and registered as C.S. No.
48/15/08, for seeking partition and petitioners appearing are
contesting the said partition suit. As per pleadings in that suit,
initially, petitioners did not disclose about the Will, however, later
on this fact was disclosed and present petition has been filed.
The petitioners in their petition specifically pleaded that in
October 2010, the Phoopha of the petitioners, namely, S. Pritam
Singh, one of the attesting witness to the Will Ex. PW-1/A,
resident of Jalandhar City, Punjab intimated them through a letter
with regard to the Will of late Smt. Baljeet Kaur, mother and also
sent a letter and original will, therefore, the present petition has
been filed.
Section 59 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Mahesh Kumar (D) By Lrs vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 13 March, 2012
57. Following the above rulings, the Supreme Court in
Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.,
(2012) 4 SCC 387, held, in the facts and circumstances of the
said case that the evidence unmistakably showing that the
objectors had separated from the family, taking their respective
shares, not bothering to look after the parents in their old age,
there was "nothing unatural or unusual" in the decision of the
testator ( the father) to give his share in the joint family property
to the son who, along with his wife and children, had taken care
of the parents, adding that "(A)ny person of ordinary prudence
would have adopted the same course and would not have given
anything to the ungrateful children from his/her share in the
property."
Hari Singh & Anr. vs The State & Anr. on 3 December, 2010
In Hari Singh & Anr Vs. The State & Anr. 2010
( 120) DRJ 716, a division bench of this Court, after noting the
law declared, inter alia, in Uma Devi Nambiar (supra), observed
thus:-