Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.36 seconds)
Sunita vs The State on 5 May, 2025 cites

Sunita & Ors. vs Deepak & Anr. on 13 October, 2017

(67) It has come on record that the petitioner along with both attesting witnesses and Late Smt sunita, who was earlier one of the petitioners, in the present petition, were present with the deceased, at the time of execution of the Will in question. Petitioner and Late Smt Sunita (deceased petitioner) are the only benficiaries in the Will in question. The attesting witness/Smt Manju is the wife of petitioner/Sh. Narender, to whom share in the property in question has been given by the deceased, in the Will in question. PW2/Ms. Manju is an interested witness to support the case of petitioner as her husband/petitioner will get 50% share of the property in question. Therefore, it is held that PC No 5-17 Sunita & Ors Vs State & Anr. 25/27 the testimony of PW-2 is not reliable.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Hari Singh & Anr. vs The State & Anr. on 3 December, 2010

(42) In Hari Singh & Anr. Vs State & Anr. 176 (2011) DLT 199 (DB), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made reference to a case titled Jagdish Lal Bhatia vs Madan Lal Bhatia, FAO No. 874/2003 dated 21.11.2007, which dealt with the legal burden of proof when a Will is propounded and also spelt as to what would constitute suspicious circumstances and what form of affirmative proof should be sought by the court to satisfy the judicial conscience that the document propounded is the last, legal and valid testament of the testator. These are as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 58 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next