Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Section 58 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 276 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 240 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 238 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
In the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar
v. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors.2, a celebrated judgment with respect to the
proof of Wills, the Supreme Court held that if the propounder significantly
benefits from the will, this too is considered a suspicious circumstance
requiring clear evidence for resolution. The relevant part of the judgment
reads as under:
Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008
43. Also, the Supreme Court in Anil Kak v. Sharada Raje3, opined that
the Court is required to adopt a rational approach while considering the
question of grant of probate and is furthermore required to satisfy its
conscience as existence of suspicious circumstances plays an important role.
The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
State Of Karnataka And Ors. vs M. Muniraju on 25 February, 2002
45.2 Section 60(c) of BSA, governs the admissibility of secondary
evidence. It stipulates that secondary evidence may only be admitted when
the party seeking to introduce it demonstrates that the original document is
unavailable due to specific circumstances, such as loss or destruction. The
Petitioner has failed to provide adequate proof of the unavailability of the
original Will or to show that any such circumstances exist. Consequently,
she has not met the burden of proof necessary to invoke the provisions of
this section. The High Court of Karnataka in State of Karnataka v. M
Muniraju4 held that the xerox copy of a document is inadmissible as it is
not a substantive piece of evidence.
Ashok Kothari vs Dipti Bavishi on 17 August, 2020
(ii) In Ashok Kothari v. Dipti Bavishi7 the probate was granted for a
photocopy because the Court found that the Will was validly executed
by the evidence presented, including the authenticated photocopy of
the Will and testimony from attesting witnesses, established its
6
196 (2013) DLT 217
Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 69/2024
Signed By:MAHIMA Page 21 of 26
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
19:16:07
authenticity and compliance with legal requirements, including the
contents of the Will which did not completely oust the daughter
(Dipti) from the Will, making the intentions of the Testatrix clear.
Most significantly, the Court therein observed that there was no real
challenge to the signature of the testator on the authenticated
photocopy of the Will. The challenge in the said matter was with
respect to the mental capacity of the testator. The said facts are
completely distinguishable and inapplicable to the case in hand.