Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Shivakumar vs Sharanabasappa on 24 April, 2020
29. The plaintiffs have denied the execution
and genuinity of the said Ex.D.13. On the other
hand, evidence of defend ants failed to clear the
suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will.
The possibility of fabrication of the Will by the
defend ants cannot be ruled out. Whether the
testator was acting on his own will in signing the
document is to be proved, if there app ears to be
37
doubt in that matter. But here in the circumstances
narrated above, unjust exclusion of leg al heirs and
particularly the wife and 3rd defend ant, the
suppression mad e by beneficiaries of the Will, and
their taking active p art in reg istration of the Will,
give rise to suspicious circumstance in the light of
the evid ence placed before the Court. The said
circumstances are not exp lained by the d efend ants.
If the evidence of plaintiffs and defend ants are
tested with the touch stone of the principles stated
in the decision Shivakumar and others (supra), it
is evident that the trial Court's finding that
genuineness of Ex.D.13 is not estab lished , is
supported by p roper reasons. Therefore, d efendants
do not d erive any rig ht or title over the suit
properties under the said Will Ex.D.13.
POINT No s.3 and 4:
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1