Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)
K.Ramalingam vs Anjalai .. Caveator/Defendant cites

N.Govindarajan vs N.Leelavathy on 1 July, 2011

In N.Govindarajan v. N.Leelavathy and Others [2011 (5) CTC 287], a Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the role of the attesting witnesses and held that the attestation of the Will is not an empty formality and it means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant and the attesting witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 15 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi .. ... vs Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors. .. Respondents on 15 December, 2006

(a) The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder and he/she is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he/she had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. The onus is on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any and if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. (see Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and Others- (2006) 13 SCC 433)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 203 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008

42. This Court, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions, is of the view that the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.22 of 2005, namely K.Ramalingam is surrounded by suspicious circumstances for the reason that in Ex.D1 Will executed in favour of the defendant/plaintiff in T.O.S.No.25 of 2005, namely Anjalai, it has been stated among other things about the frequent trouble caused to the testatrix as well as to her daughter and the filing of the Suit before the City Civil Court under Exs.P6 and P8 and it has been further averred that the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.25 of 2005 is living separately from her husband and she has got two daughters and the testatrix was also maintained by her and she is having no other income. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that the Suit in O.S.No.6995 of 1993 (Ex.P6) filed by the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.22 of 2005 has been attested and the judgment and decree came to be passed on 07.02.1996 under Ex.P8 and pendency of the Suit, Ex.D1 Will was executed in favour of the defendant in T.O.S.No.22 of 2005 and on account of such strained relationship, it is highly doubtful that the testatrix, of her own free will and volition, has executed Ex.P12 Will in favour of the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.22 of 2005 and that apart, in the typewritten copy of Ex.P12 Will, writings have been made and it has not been initialed/signed by the testatrix except the Schedule of Property portion, wherein she has affixed her thumb impression, which is also one of the suspicious circumstances to test the genuineness of Ex.P12 Will. There is also inconsistency in the testimony of PW2, one of the attesting witness and the inconsistencies galore in the testimonies of the witnesses PWs.1 to 3 and hence, it is wholly unsafe to rely on their testimonies for the purpose of granting relief to the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.22 of 2015.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 170 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next