Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.43 seconds)
Dhirendra Pratap vs Smt. Dharmawati And Another on 9 December, 2020 cites

Gulab Chandra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh 19 Wpc/2766/2018 ... on 18 February, 2019

9. Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appellant, submitted that defendant no. 2 Avadh Narain Tiwari neither filed written statement denying the plaint allegation nor appeared in witness box challenging the Will dated 04.10.1999, nor the courts below framed any issue or point of determination that after death of Laxmi Devi her husband acquired right by way of succession and had right of sale. Both the courts below exceeded in their jurisdiction while holding that defendant no. 2 by way of succession had right to execute sale-deed. It was next contended that defendant no. 1 being purchaser of the property in dispute was neither beneficiary nor legal heir, as such, had no right to challenge the genuineness of Will dated 04.10.1999. Reliance has been placed upon decision of this Court in case of Gulab Vs. Om Prakash, 2014 (122) RD 503.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 16 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar & Anr on 12 March, 2013

31. Reliance placed by the plaintiff appellant upon decision in case of Joseph John Peter Sandy (Supra) and K.K. Mohandas & Ors. (Supra) are distinguishable in the facts of the present case. Argument raised by the plaintiff appellant is accepted to the extent that there was no requirement of probate of Will in the State of U.P. as the legal position has already been settled by this Court in number of judgments. However, the moot question which arises in the present case is that it was the burden upon the plaintiff appellant to prove the Will beyond doubt which he had failed to discharge as the statement of attesting witnesses are contrary and no occasion arose as to why late Laxmi Devi would exclude her husband Avadh Narain Tiwari from absolute ownership of the property, well knowing that except him there was no other person to succeed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 90 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Karnataka & Anr vs K.K. Mohandas & Etc on 1 August, 2007

31. Reliance placed by the plaintiff appellant upon decision in case of Joseph John Peter Sandy (Supra) and K.K. Mohandas & Ors. (Supra) are distinguishable in the facts of the present case. Argument raised by the plaintiff appellant is accepted to the extent that there was no requirement of probate of Will in the State of U.P. as the legal position has already been settled by this Court in number of judgments. However, the moot question which arises in the present case is that it was the burden upon the plaintiff appellant to prove the Will beyond doubt which he had failed to discharge as the statement of attesting witnesses are contrary and no occasion arose as to why late Laxmi Devi would exclude her husband Avadh Narain Tiwari from absolute ownership of the property, well knowing that except him there was no other person to succeed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Clarence Pais & Ors vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2001

13. Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel, next tried to impress upon by placing certain correspondence made between plaintiff appellant and Laxmi Devi as well as Avadh Narain Tiwari so as to prove the fact that plaintiff appellant was one of the member of the family of Laxmi Devi and Avadh Narain Tiwari, and was constantly in touch with them, thus, no suspicion arises for execution of unregistered Will dated 04.10.1999. On the issue of probate not being granted to the unregistered Will dated 04.10.1999 it was submitted that there is no requirement in the State of U.P. for probate of a Will. Reliance has been placed upon decision in case of Clarence Pais Vs. Union of India 2001 (43) ALR 249 (SC), Ramjas (Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Sunder Devi (Dead) & Another, 2014 (125) RD 376, Ashok Kumar Dhawan (Now Dead Through L.Rs.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 71 - Full Document

Gurdial Kaur And Others vs Kartar Kaur And Others on 26 March, 1998

25. The trial court had considered all the documentary evidences filed by the plaintiff appellant as well as oral testimony while recording finding that plaintiff appellant could not prove the unregistered Will dated 04.10.1999 and was only a tenant in the property in dispute. Apex Court in the case of N. Kamalam (Dead) & Another (Supra) as well as in Gurdial Kaur & Ors. (Supra) had categorically held that the attestation of the Will should be proved and the onus lies upon party propounding the Will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 122 - G N Ray - Full Document

N. Kamalam (Dead) And Anr vs Ayyasamy & Anr on 3 August, 2001

25. The trial court had considered all the documentary evidences filed by the plaintiff appellant as well as oral testimony while recording finding that plaintiff appellant could not prove the unregistered Will dated 04.10.1999 and was only a tenant in the property in dispute. Apex Court in the case of N. Kamalam (Dead) & Another (Supra) as well as in Gurdial Kaur & Ors. (Supra) had categorically held that the attestation of the Will should be proved and the onus lies upon party propounding the Will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 178 - Full Document

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

19. It was then contended that Avadh Narain Tiwari being sole legal heir of Laxmi Devi having succeeded to the property became the absolute owner and executed the sale-deed on 24.12.1999. Lastly it was contended that in the present appeal no substantial question of law arises as the word ''substantial' as qualifying ''question of law' means - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. While, in the present case, both the courts below had recorded categorical finding of fact against the plaintiff appellant and no substantial question of law arises. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purshottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. 2001 (3) SCC 179.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next