Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.39 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Daulat Ram & Ors vs Sodha & Ors on 16 November, 2004
40. The next serious contention that was put forth by the
defendants 1 to 4 is that the evidence of P.W.2 is not helpful to the plaintiff
to prove that the Will was executed in a manner known to law. Before
41/69
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.O.S.No.5 of 2006 and
Tr.C.S.No.283 of 2008
and C.S.No.441 of 2010
proceeding to the evidence of P.W.2, it should be confirmed whether the
plaintiff had proved the genuineness of the signature of the testator. The
first defendant who was examined as D.W.1 had deposed that the signature
found in every page of the Will is the signature of his father. The learned
Senior Counsels for the defendants 1 to 4 submitted that the stray admission
of witnesses cannot be viewed similarly and entire evidence of witnesses
should be read as a whole. If the witnesses of D.W.1 is read as a whole, it
can only be inferred that D.W.1 has not admitted the execution of the Will
by her father though she had admitted the signatures of her father affixed in
the Will. But the burden is still upon the plaintiff to prove that the
signatures have been affixed by the testator knowing pretty well that he had
signed on a Will which was executed by him wherein he bequeathed the
properties in favour of his son and confers right of administration in respect
of the temple along with him. So the propounder has the responsibility to
prove that the Will has been validly executed by the testator out of his own
free will and he was in a sound disposing state of mind. The above point
has been well taken by the plaintiff himself and in this regard the learned
counsel for the plaintiff referred the decision of this Court rendered in
42/69
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.O.S.No.5 of 2006 and
Tr.C.S.No.283 of 2008
and C.S.No.441 of 2010
Daulat Ram Vs. Sodha & others reported in 2004 (5) CTC 790 wherein it is held as
under:-
Perumal vs Alagammal Alias Pappathi on 16 November, 2011
In
support of the above contention, she relied on the judgment of this Court
held in Perumal Vs. Alagammal @ Pappathi reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Mad
2164. In the said judgment it is held as under:-
Apoline D Souza vs John D Souza on 16 May, 2007
58. The attention of the court was also drawn to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Apoline D' Souza Vs. Jonh D' Souza reported
in (2007) 7 SCC 225 as under:-
R. Deivanai Ammal (Died) vs G. Meenakshi Ammal on 13 July, 2004
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff relied on the decision of this Court made in R.Deivanai Ammal and
another vs. G.Meenakshi Ammal and others reported in 2004 (4) CTC 208 and the
same has been referred in the following decisions as well:-
Kavita Kanwar vs Mrs. Pamela Mehta on 19 May, 2020
43. However, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants 2 to 4 has
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Kavita Kanwar vs.
Pamela Mehta and others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 209. In the said judgment,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an individual factor alone cannot
be considered as decisive for getting the satisfaction about the true
execution of the Will. In that context it is relevant to extract the paragraphs
'28' and '29' of the above judgment:-
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam on 17 December, 2002
In Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam reported in
(2003) 2 SCC 91, it is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if one
attesting witness is examined his evidence has to satisfy the requirements of
attestation of the Will by the other witness also. Keeping the above
standards required for the proof the execution of the Will, it has to be seen
whether the plaintiff is able to discharge his burden by proving it before the
Court.