Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs Ramesh Gandhi on 14 November, 2011
Vijay Syal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 May, 2003
iii) Vijay Syal and another v. State of Punjab and
others3
Raj Kumari vs Surinder Pal Sharma on 17 December, 2019
In a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
in the case of Raj Kumari and others v. Surinder Pal Sharma4
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said
judgment has laid down principle with regard to the Will and its
proof. It reads as under;
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
In H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.
Thimmajamma5, dilating on the statutory and
mandatory requisites for validating the execution of
the will, this Court had highlighted the dissimilarities
between the will which is a testamentary instrument
vis-à-vis other documents of conveyancing, by
emphasising that the will is produced before the
court after the testator who has departed from the
world, cannot say that the will is his own or it is not
the same. This factum introduces an element of
4
(2021) 14 SCC 500
5
AIR 1959 SC 443
31 RFA No. 100108/2017
c/w RFA No. 100109/2017
solemnity to the decision on the question where the
will propounded is proved as the last will or
testament of the departed testator. Therefore, the
propounder to succeed and prove the will is required
to prove by satisfactory evidence that (i) the will was
signed by the testator; (ii) the testator at the time
was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) the
testator understood the nature and effect of the
dispositions; and (iv) that the testator had put his
signature on the document of his own free will.
Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur & Ors on 25 October, 1976
In Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur6, it was held that
suspicion generated by disinheritance is not removed
by mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears
the signature of the testator or that the testator was in
sound and disposing state of mind when the will
disinherits those like the wife and children of the
testator who would have normally received their due
share in the estate. At the same time, the testator may
have his own reasons for excluding them. Therefore, it
is obligatory for the propounder to remove all the
6
(1977) 1 SCC 369
32 RFA No. 100108/2017
c/w RFA No. 100109/2017
legitimate suspicions before a will is accepted as a
valid last will of the testator.