Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 23 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors on 29 September, 2005
30. Pentakota Satyanarayana and Ors. vs. Pentakota
Seetharantnam, MANU/SC/0819/2005 "every circumstance is not
such, even active participation in execution of Will by propounders is by
itself not sufficient to create any doubt about testamentary capacity and
genuineness of Will."
Sh. Sudershan Kumar Seth vs Sh. Pawan Kumar Seth And Ors. on 5 September, 2005
42. Counsel for defendants No. 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and defendant No.
3 placed reliance upon Sudershan Kumar Sethi vs. Pawan Kumar Seth
and Ors. IA 9776/2000 in CS (OS) 710/2000 wherein Hon'ble High
Court quoted the relevant extracts from the Judgment of Mohammad Ali
that "the general principle of law is that in the case of coowners, the
possession of one, is in law possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is
proved. To continue to be in joint possession in law, it is not necessary
that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the
property. Equally it is not necessary that he should be getting a share or
some income from the property. So long as his right to a share and the
nature of property as joint is not disputed, the law presumes that he is in
joint possession unless he is excluded from such possession". In the
instant case, the flat at Kalkaji is self acquired property of deceased father
Page No. 20/23
of plaintiff No. 1 whereas with regard to the other property at Azad
Market, there is no plea on behalf of defendants regarding exclusion of
possession of plaintiff No. 1 or of her deceased father at any point of
time, therefore, the said plea of Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 3 is also
not tenable.
Section 15 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Bharpur Singh & Ors vs Shamsher Singh on 12 December, 2008
27. Counsel for plaintiffs relied upon Bharpur Singh and Ors.
vs. Shamsher Singh, MANU/SC/8404/2008, wherein it was observed
that "suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be
surrounded in the execution of the Will : (i) the signature of the testator
may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Gopal Swaroop vs Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors on 25 November, 2010
Gopal Swaroop vs. Krishna Murari Mangal
MANU/SC/0988/2010 wherein "Will was held to be duly executed when
signed by testator in presence of attesting witnesses."
Krishan Sharma vs Raj Rani Bhardwaj & Ors on 1 March, 2013
36. Per contra, it was submitted by Counsel for plaintiffs that as
held in Krishan Sharma vs. Raj Rani Bhardwaj and Ors. AIR 2013
Delhi 136, "consequent to the amendment in the year 2005, the Law
applicable after 2005 was held good and suit cannot be dismissed though
filed prior to amendment in the year 2005.
1