Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)

Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976

2. Citation was published in newspaper 'National Herald', but no one appeared from general public to file any objection. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No.3, 5 & 6 filed (PC No.351/06) (Shashi Kr. Jain, thru L.Rs vs. State & Ors.) : 3: their no objection. Respondent No.4 was proceeded ex parte. The petition was contested only by respondent no.2 Anil Kumar Jain, who filed objections challenging the Will. He took preliminary objection that the Will is undated and is not bearing the signatures of Shri Madan Lal Jain on each page and is also not in the handwriting of Shri Madan Lal Jain. It has been stated that the properties mentioned in the Will were not self acquired property of late Shri Madan Lal Jain. Most of these properties were acquired out of the funds, income and assets of Hindu undivided family known as Madan Lal Jain (HUF) of which he was the Karta and his four sons i.e. petitioners and respondents no.2 to 4. Respondents No.2 to 4 are the co-parceners. It is, thus, stated that Shri Madan Lal Jain had no right, power or authority to execute the Will in respect of HUF property. It is also stated that even if the Will was executed, the same shall be the result of undue pressure, coercion and influence as Shri Madan Lal Jain was not in sound disposing state of mind and health and, therefore, the Will was not executed out of the free will and sound state of mind. It has further been stated that no reason has been given in the Will for not bequeathing any property to respondent no.2 and his family. It has also been stated that both the witnesses had proximity with the deceased. It has further been stated that the verification of the petition is not in accordance with the law and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On merits of the case, the respondents denied all the averments made in the petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 278 - S M Ali - Full Document

Nand Kishore Rai And Anr. vs Mst. Bhagi Kuer And Ors. on 30 August, 1957

11. As per provisions of Section 281 of the Act, every petition for the grant of probate of any Will has to be verified by at least one of the attesting witnesses to the Will in the format as given in the Section. Section 281 of the Act has used the words "- - - - - the petition shall also be verified by at least one of the witnesses - - - -" and the format of the verification has also been given in the section. But at the same time, the effect of non observance of the provisions laid down under section 281 of the Act has not been given in the Act & therefore these provisions were held to be directory in Nand Kishore Rai vs. Mst.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1