Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.40 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
443. It was observed in that case that the mode of
proving a will did not ordinarily differ from that of
proving any other document except as to the special
requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a
will by section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The
onus of proving the will was on the propounder and in
the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding
the execution of the will proof of testamentary capacity
and signature of the testator as required by law was
sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there
were suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on
the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of
the Court before the will could be accepted as
genuine. If the caveator alleged undue influence, fraud
or coercion, the onus would be on him to prove the
same. Even where there were no such pleas but the
circumstances gave rise to doubts, it was for the
propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court.
Leela Rajagopal & Ors vs Kamala Menon Cochran & Ors on 8 September, 2014
9(ix). The judgment in the case of Ram Chand Versus Udai Singh
alias Daya Ram & Ors. (supra) was given in the peculiar facts of that case
and would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Raj
26 of 27
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 05:33:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158431
RSA-1761-2023 (O&M) -27- 2023:PHHC:158431
Kumar & Ors. Versus Hari Chand (dead) through his LRs. & Ors., a
Coordinate Bench of this Court held that merely because there were thumb
impressions on the Will instead of signatures, it would not amount to
suspicious circumstances and that the thumb impressions are rather more
authentic and difficult to tamper with. This judgment would also not come to
the aid of appellant/defendant since no efforts were made to prove that thumb
impressions were actually of Smt. Kailashwanti and further as to under what
circumstances before and after execution of the Will, Smt. Kailashwanti had
been appending her signatures instead of thumb impressions. It has to be
borne in mind that the onus to prove the Will was upon the defendant which
she did not successfully discharge.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
In the case of Mahesh Kumar
(Dead) by L.Rs. Versus Vinod Kumar & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the mere fact that the propounder was present at the time of
the execution of the Will would not affect the genuineness or validity of the
Will. This judgment will not come to the aid of the appellant as she has not
been non-suited only on the ground of having been present at the time of
execution of the Will but on the contrary she has been non-suited on account
of many other circumstances which have been discussed in the preceding
paragraphs.