Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.27 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002
The burden of proof that the Will has been validly
executed and is a genuine document is on the
propounder. The propounder is also required to prove
that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put
his signature out of his own free will having a sound
disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect
thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on
record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have
been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant
to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent
evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a
signature of a testator alone would not prove the
execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very
feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud,
coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would
be on the caveator. [See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai
Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 and Sridevi and Ors. v.
Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 784]. Subject to
above, proof of a Will does not ordinarily differ from that
of proving any other document.
The Registration Act, 1908
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Apoline D Souza vs John D Souza on 16 May, 2007
34. It is interesting to note that the decision reported in
Naresh Charan Das Gupta's case (supra) was considered in the
decision reported in Apoline D'Souza v. John D'Souza (AIR 2007
SC 2219).