Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)
Kismat Devi & Ors vs Ram Bapu Pd. Ors on 3 May, 2012 cites

Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008

In the decision relied upon by the applicant-respondent itself, i.e. 2008 (7) SCC 695 Anil Kak Vs. Kumari Sharda Raje, the Apex Court has held that deprivation of a due share to natural heir although might not by itself be a suspicious circumstances, it is none the less one of the factors to be taken into consideration by Court before granting probate of Will. The Apex Court in this case held that where suspicious circumstances exist, the party claiming to obtain probate or alleged letters of administration must also adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Court regarding the genuineness of the Will and the Court must satisfy its conscience before passing an order granting probate. This is the well settled principal of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 170 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Birla vs Rajendra Singh Lodha & Ors on 31 March, 2008

17. The learned counsel relying on decisions of the Apex Court 2008 (4) SCC 300 Krishna Kumar Birla Vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha and 2008 (7) SCC 695 Anil Kak Vs. Kumari Sharda Raje submitted that a will is executed to alter the mode of succession and part IX of the Succession Act, 1925 has nothing to do with the law of inheritance or succession which is otherwise governed by statutory laws or custom. Therefore, only because no provision has been made, there can be no suspicious circumstances. So far this submission of the learned counsel is concerned, no doubt, it is true but the circumstances as a whole is to be seen. It may be mentioned here that the two wives and the two minor daughters were residing with Ram Sundar Sah. It is not the case of the applicant that there was any strain relationship between Ram Sundar Sah and his two wives and two minor daughters rather it is admitted fact that he had very cordial relationship with them and had great love and affection. In such circumstances, it is not accepted from a prudent man that he will give everything without making any provision for the minor daughters. Had it been the case that after making provision for them, the remaining properties were bequeathed the case would have been otherwise. No doubt it is the choice of the testator to give his entire property to anybody but then there must be some reason to deprive the legal heirs from succession of the property. In the present case, no such reason has been assigned. Therefore, this is grave suspicious circumstances. In the will ext.1, it is only mentioned that the testator had no male issue but nothing has been mentioned about two daughters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs Kirandeep Kaur & Ors on 3 April, 2008

It may be mentioned here that in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur Vs. Kirandeep Kaur 2008 (8) SCC 463 also the Apex Court dealt elaborately the scope of Article 137 of the Limitation Act and quoted the decision of the Bombay High Court, i.e., the case of Basudeo Daulatram Sadarangani at paragraph 15. The said paragraph 15 of the Apex Court is quoted hereinbelow :
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 160 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Sharma vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma on 27 March, 2009

22. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the probate application is not governed by any article of Limitation Act and, there is no 10 Patna High Court FA No.377 of 1987 dt.03-05-2012 10 / 14 provision prescribing period for filing probate application and, therefore, it cannot be said that the application is barred by law of limitation. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the Honble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 2009 (3) PLJR 80 SC relying upon the earlier decision held that the application for grant of probate or letters of administration is covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 88 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1