Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.36 seconds)
Rajesh Chander Katyal & Anr. vs . State & Anr. on 19 January, 2023 cites

H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958

In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others AIR 1959 SC 443 has highlighted the dissimilarities between the Will which is a testamentary instrument vis­à­vis 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 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
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1203 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Navneet Lal Alias Rangi vs Gokul And Others on 9 December, 1975

27. Similarly in Navneet Lal Alias Rangi vs Gokul and Others : AIR 1976 SC 794, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the following Principles/Guidelines:­ "From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established:­ "(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 132 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Gnanambal Ammal vs T. Raju Ayyar And Others on 21 October, 1950

Parthasarathy(2)] and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense....but all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. [Venkata Narasimha's case supra and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar and Others(1)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 119 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962

"(4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expression inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. [Paerey Lal v. Rameshwar Das(3)]. "(5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it, Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 96 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next