Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Mahesh Kumar (D) By Lrs vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 13 March, 2012
In this context, it is useful to refer the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in TOS.No.6 of 2005 in the case of Mahesh Kumar v. Vinod Kumar and others cited supra, wherein the Hon`ble Apex Court has held that mere absence of a categorical recital in the subsequent Will about the cancelling of the earlier Will is not relevant because once the execution of the second Will is held as duly proved, the earlier Will automatically becomes redundant because the second Will represents the last wish of the testator. Therefore, the contention of the defendants cannot be countenanced in that aspect.
Pushpa Bala Jagam vs K. Ananda Kumar on 22 June, 2010
Insofar the judgments in the case of Pushpa Bala Jagam v. K.Ananda Kumar and two others and Perumal v. Alagammal @ Pappathi, cited supra relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition set out in the said judgments. But in the given case, considering the entire evidence, this Court does not find any suspicious circumstances surrounded in the Will. Therefore, the above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Perumal vs Alagammal Alias Pappathi on 16 November, 2011
Insofar the judgments in the case of Pushpa Bala Jagam v. K.Ananda Kumar and two others and Perumal v. Alagammal @ Pappathi, cited supra relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition set out in the said judgments. But in the given case, considering the entire evidence, this Court does not find any suspicious circumstances surrounded in the Will. Therefore, the above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors on 29 September, 2005
33. Similarly, in another judgment reported in (2005) 8 SCC 67 (Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam, the Hon`ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
Sridevi & Ors vs Jayaraja Shetty & Ors on 28 January, 2005
.. .. ..25. It is settled by a catena of decisions that any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance. Even in a case where active participation and execution of the Will by the propounders/ beneficiaries was there, it has been held that that by itself is not sufficient to create any doubt either about the testamentary capacity or the genuineness of the Will. It has been held that the mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of execution would not prove that the beneficiary had taken prominent part in the execution of the Will. This is the view taken by this Court in Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty [(2005) 2 SCC 784] . In the said case, it has been held that the onus to prove the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the proof of signature of the testator as required by law would not be sufficient to discharge the onus. In case, the person attesting the Will alleges undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on him to prove the same and that as to what suspicious circumstances which have to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. .. .."