Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
Smt. Sudha Sharma vs State Of Delhi on 2 September, 2019 cites

Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors on 29 September, 2005

20. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi Nambiar Vs. T.C. Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321, and Pentakota Satyanarayana Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam, (2005) 8 SCC 67 are authorities on the principle that active participation of the propounder or beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of the natural heirs need not or necessarily lead to an inference that the Will was not genuine.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 329 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Ppk Gopalan Nambiar vs Ppk Balakrishnan Nambiar And Ors on 7 March, 1995

"16. A will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heirs. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a will. It is true that a propounder of the will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 13 of 20 doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstances especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar [1995 Supp (2) SCC 664] it is the duty of the propounder of the will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the court has to give effect to the will, even if the will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 194 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Rabindra Nath Mukherjee& Anr vs Panchanan Banerjee (Dead)By Lrs. & Ors on 9 May, 1995

In Rabindra Nath Mukerjee v. Panchanan Banerjee [(1995) 4 SCC 459] it was observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 284 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar (D) By Lrs vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 13 March, 2012

21. 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 PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 14 of 20 who, along with his wife and children, had taken care of the parents, adding that :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 114 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 Next