Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)
Yogender Kumar Sharma vs The State on 16 May, 2012 cites

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

20. Another point that has to be considered is about the improbability in the manner in which the instrument is scripted. As observed in the report published as AIR 1959 SC 443 H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N Thimmajamma and Ors instance of suspicious circumstances would be alleged signatures of the testator being shaky and doubtful, condition of the testator's mind being feeble and debilitated, bequest being unnatural, improbable or unfair. Apart from these infirmities, propounder taking a prominent part in the execution of the Will, more so when substantial benefits flow to them are all presumptive of the Will not being duly executed and or of suspicious circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1203 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur & Ors on 25 October, 1976

In a recent judgment titled as Suraj Bhan Vs. State in FAO no. 82/07 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog of our own High Court dealing with the probate matter has elaborated and reaffirmed the legal position as has been there since 1950's in Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N Thimmajamma and Others AIR 1959 SC 443 and was followed in 1977 in Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Amrit Kaur AIR 1977 SC 74. It has been observed and is reproduced as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 431 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Shri Vidya Sagar Soni vs State And Ors. on 28 August, 2006

Judgment of this court in the decision reported as Vidya Sagar Soni Vs. State and Others AIR 2006 Delhi 354 extensively dealt with the legal burden of proof when a Will is propounded in the last legal and valid testament. I need not repeat. Principles culled out in paras 5 to 21 of the said decision are as under :- 5 Section 2 (h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines a Will to mean the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

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

9. No specific standard of proof can be enunciated which must be applicable to all the cases. Every case depends upon its own circumstances. Apart from other proof, conduct of parties is very material and has considerable bearing on evidence as to the genuineness of the Will which is propounded. Courts have to be vigilant and zealous in examining evidence. Rules relating to proof of Wills are not rules of Laws but are rules of prudence. Normally, a Will is executed by a person where he desirous, to either alter the normal rule of succession or where he desirous to settle his estate in a particular manner amongst the legal heirs. Therefore, through to be kept in mind, as to what is the nature of bequest too much importance cannot be attached to the disproportionate nature of a bequest. However, as observed in AIR 1995 SC 1684, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. Vs. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by Lrs disproportionate nature of a bequest is no doubt a suspicious circumstance to be kept in mind, but, being a mere suspicion, it is capable of being dispelled by other evidence to how voluntary character of the document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 284 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And Another on 22 August, 1961

There is ample evidence on record that he was living socially improper life, away from his family and children possibly with another woman. It can be very well inferred from the testimony of the witnesses that the testatrix was aware that his only son is not caring about his legally wedded wife and PC NO. 113/11 Page 13 of 14 children, the conduct is against the social norms in that case a lady of conventional thinking would certainly strive to protect the interest of her daughter-in-law and grand children. The execution of the Will dated 30.09.1994 is manifestation of such values which according to normal human behaviour and conduct in these circumstances is appropriate and probate, thus, the same brings credibility and authenticity to the Will dated 30.09.1994. Whereas, the Will set up by the petitioner has been afflicted by suspicious circumstances, not supported by one of the attesting witnesses and the physical and mental condition of the Testatrix being delicate, giving all the reasons to disbelieve the Will propounded by the respondent. More so, the non production fo the Will in the earlier civil litigation between the parties where a question mark was there about the rights of the parties in the property, therefore, had there been anything with the petitioner, he would have certainly placed it on record. The suppression/non-production creates doubt about the authenticity of the same. As such in view of the facts and circumstances, both the issues no. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 344 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Suraj Bhan Meena & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 7 December, 2010

In a recent judgment titled as Suraj Bhan Vs. State in FAO no. 82/07 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog of our own High Court dealing with the probate matter has elaborated and reaffirmed the legal position as has been there since 1950's in Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N Thimmajamma and Others AIR 1959 SC 443 and was followed in 1977 in Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Amrit Kaur AIR 1977 SC 74. It has been observed and is reproduced as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 114 - A Kabir - Full Document
1   2 Next