Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
3 vs Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Nanda on 30 May, 2019 cites

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

8. No specific standard of proof can be enunciated which must be appli­ cable to all the cases. Every case depends upon its own circumstances. Apart from other proof, conduct of parties is very material and has con­ siderable bearing on evidence as to the genuineness of the will which is CS No. 2777/16 Page 7/18 propounded. Courts have to be vigilant and zealous in examining evi­ dence. 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 desires, to either alter the normal rule of succession, or where he desires to settle his estate in a particular manner amongst the legal heirs. Therefore, though 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 be­ quest. However, as observed in AIR 1995 SC 1684 Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRs, dispropor­ tionate 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 show voluntary character of the document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 284 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006

28. Issue no.3 - The issue is whether the plaintiff suppressed 'material' facts and the effect thereof, onus being on the defendants to prove it. There can certainly be no denial from the settled principle of law that suppression of 'material' fact by a litigant disqualifies him from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But what is essential is that the suppressed fact must be a 'material' fact. It must be material in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. Decisions reported as Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 100, M/s S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421 and Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 581 can be referred to in this context. The defendants assert that the plaintiff has resorted to suppression of 'material' facts by not disclosing that Smt. Satnam Kaur was being looked after by defendant no.2 in the evening of her life and further that after her husband's demise when there was nobody to take care of her, her two brothers had looked after her. This is hardly a suppression of 'material' fact on the part of the plaintiff. In plaintiff's scheme of things this aspect was not really germane.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 558 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004

28. Issue no.3 - The issue is whether the plaintiff suppressed 'material' facts and the effect thereof, onus being on the defendants to prove it. There can certainly be no denial from the settled principle of law that suppression of 'material' fact by a litigant disqualifies him from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But what is essential is that the suppressed fact must be a 'material' fact. It must be material in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. Decisions reported as Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 100, M/s S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421 and Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 581 can be referred to in this context. The defendants assert that the plaintiff has resorted to suppression of 'material' facts by not disclosing that Smt. Satnam Kaur was being looked after by defendant no.2 in the evening of her life and further that after her husband's demise when there was nobody to take care of her, her two brothers had looked after her. This is hardly a suppression of 'material' fact on the part of the plaintiff. In plaintiff's scheme of things this aspect was not really germane.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 326 - R Pal - Full Document

Virender Nath Gautam vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 8 December, 2006

28. Issue no.3 - The issue is whether the plaintiff suppressed 'material' facts and the effect thereof, onus being on the defendants to prove it. There can certainly be no denial from the settled principle of law that suppression of 'material' fact by a litigant disqualifies him from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But what is essential is that the suppressed fact must be a 'material' fact. It must be material in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. Decisions reported as Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 100, M/s S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421 and Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 581 can be referred to in this context. The defendants assert that the plaintiff has resorted to suppression of 'material' facts by not disclosing that Smt. Satnam Kaur was being looked after by defendant no.2 in the evening of her life and further that after her husband's demise when there was nobody to take care of her, her two brothers had looked after her. This is hardly a suppression of 'material' fact on the part of the plaintiff. In plaintiff's scheme of things this aspect was not really germane.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 131 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1