Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.78 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
31. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present matter,
evidence placed on record, the settled principle of law, the discussion
made above and the precedents on this point, it is clear that so called Will
dt.15.10.2001 has not been duly proved by the propounder as is required
by law as per the provision of Section 63, 67 and 68 of Indian Evidence Act
and in view of the ratio laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of H. Venkatchala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma (Supra). Therefore, it
can be easily concluded that the Will dt.15.10.2001 has not been proved in
accordance with law and probate cannot be granted to the petitioners.
Present petition is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966
In the case titled, Gopalakrishnan Pillai Vs. Meenakshi AIR
1967 SC 155, it has been held that Will was attested by two persons but
the propounder relied only on the testimony of one of them for proof of the
execution and attestation of the Will. On the basis of evidence, hon'ble
Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the attestor, who was the
witness, did not see the other attestor putting his signature on the Will and
thus upheld the High Court view that the propounder failed to prove the
PC No.66/2012 12/19
signature of the other attestor of the attestation of the Will by him and on
this ground alone it was held that the Will was not proved.
Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002
In Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedag, AIR 2002 SC
637, it has been held that the conscience of the court has to be satisfied by
the propounder of the Will adducing evidence so as to dispel any
suspicious or unnatural circumstances attaching to a Will and the law of
evidence does not permit conjecture of suspicion having the place of legal
proof not permit them to demolish a fact otherwise prove by legal and
convincing evidence.
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam on 17 December, 2002
29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Janki Narayan Bhoir V.
Narayan Nanideo Kadam, AIR 2003 SC 761, has held that the Will cannot
be proved by simply proving the signature on the Will to be that of the
PC No.66/2012 17/19
testator and it must also be proved that the attestations were also made
properly as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
Considering the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 who are the petitioners and
no attesting witnesses to the Will have testified to prove the Will in
accordance with law. Petitioners have failed to prove the proper attestation
of the Will as required u/s 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gurdial Kaur And Others vs Kartar Kaur And Others on 26 March, 1998
19. There are other judgments on the issues that all the doubts are
required to be removed by propounder and he has to explain the
suspicious circumstances to the complete satisfaction of the court.
Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Indu Bala Bose &
others Vs. Manindra Chandra Bose & another, 1982 (1) SCC 20;
Gurdian Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others 1998 (4) SCC 384
and Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane Vs. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar,
1995 (5) SCC 215.