Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.50 seconds)
Manju Mathpal vs State on 17 October, 2023 cites

Smt. Manju Daughter Of Shri Krishan ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2019

Upon notice, objections to the instant petition was filed by respondent no.2 on the ground that the petition filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with law; the petition of the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as Sh. Chander Parkash Mathpal is one of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Keshav Dutt Mathpal who has not been made a party in the present petition, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the deceased Keshav Dutt Mathpal had never executed Will dated 16.01.2012. The alleged witnesses namely Sh. Vineet Jain and Sh. Rahul Dadwal are the friends/closely known persons of the petitioner and her husband. The deceased was having two sons, namely Sh. Chander Prakash Mathpal and Sh. Anil Kumar Mathpal and a daughter, namely Smt. Deepa Joshi but as per the said Will, he has not bequeathed any property/ share to any of his legal heirs, therefore, the Will in question is shrouded by suspicion. It is further averred that in January, 2012, deceased Keshav Dutt Mathpal was seriously ill and was not in sound state of health and mind and his mental status was not in a position to execute an important document PC 109/16 Smt. Manju Mathpal Vs. State & Ors Pages 2 of 16 like Will. The property in question is not the self-acquired property of deceased and hence, the alleged Will is not a valid Will in the eyes of law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V S Siradhana - Full Document

H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958

Lastly, as far as contention of ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 that petitioner is not entitled to the grant of probate since no executor is named in the Will is concerned, the same holds water. But, at the same time, petitioner is entitled to the Will annexed grant of letter of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. Thus, applying the principles laid down in "H. Venkatachala Iyangar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (supra)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1203 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Shri Vidya Sagar Soni vs State And Ors. on 28 August, 2006

and "Vidya Sagar Soni v. State (supra)" it is held that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of letter of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased i.e. property bearing No. A- 113, Block-A, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi (measuring about 100 sq. yds.) as bequeathed in the Will of the deceased testator, namely, Keshav Dutt Mathpal dated 16.01.2012. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Rabindra Nath Mukherjee& Anr vs Panchanan Banerjee (Dead)By Lrs. & Ors on 9 May, 1995

8. No specific standard of proof can be enunciated which must be applicable to all the cases. Every case depends upon its own circumstances. Apart from other proof, conduct of parties is very material and has considerable bearing on evidence as to the genuineness of the Will which is propounded. Courts have to be vigilant and zealous in examining evidence. Rules relating to proof of wills are not rules of laws but are rules of prudence. Normally, a Will is executed by a person where he desirous, to either alter the normal rule of succession, or where he desirous to settle his estate in a particular manner amongst the legal heirs. Therefore, though to be kept in mind, as to what is the nature of bequest too much importance cannot be attached to the disproportionate nature of a bequest. However, as observed in (1995) 4 SCC 459 : AIR 1995 SC 1684, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRs, PC 109/16 Smt. Manju Mathpal Vs. State & Ors Pages 9 of 16 disproportionate nature of a bequest is no doubt a suspicious circumstance to be kept in mind, but, being a mere suspicion, it is capable of being dispelled by other evidence to show voluntary character of the document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 284 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1