Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And Ors on 1 August, 1978
He also made submissions on the legal principles and its
application to the facts of the case. According to him, the respondents have not proved
that Krishna Bhagavan was adopted by Pentakota Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam
and that the evidence relied upon, namely, PW1, PW3, PW6, DW2 and DW3 falls short
of the required proof in law. He took us through the evidence and pleadings and
various circumstances which negate the genuineness of the adoption. On presumption
of marriage due to long cohabitation, Mr. Viswanathan cited some authorities, namely,
Thakur Gokalchand vs. Parvin Kumari reported in [1952] SCR 825; Badri Prasad vs.
Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527; S.P.S
Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others reported in
(1994) 1 SCC 460, Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Others
reported in (2005) 2 SCC 244. He also cited various decisions to the effect that there is
no absolute bar for interference on concurrent findings.
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan on 13 October, 1993
He also made submissions on the legal principles and its
application to the facts of the case. According to him, the respondents have not proved
that Krishna Bhagavan was adopted by Pentakota Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam
and that the evidence relied upon, namely, PW1, PW3, PW6, DW2 and DW3 falls short
of the required proof in law. He took us through the evidence and pleadings and
various circumstances which negate the genuineness of the adoption. On presumption
of marriage due to long cohabitation, Mr. Viswanathan cited some authorities, namely,
Thakur Gokalchand vs. Parvin Kumari reported in [1952] SCR 825; Badri Prasad vs.
Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527; S.P.S
Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others reported in
(1994) 1 SCC 460, Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Others
reported in (2005) 2 SCC 244. He also cited various decisions to the effect that there is
no absolute bar for interference on concurrent findings.
Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors on 28 January, 2005
He also made submissions on the legal principles and its
application to the facts of the case. According to him, the respondents have not proved
that Krishna Bhagavan was adopted by Pentakota Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam
and that the evidence relied upon, namely, PW1, PW3, PW6, DW2 and DW3 falls short
of the required proof in law. He took us through the evidence and pleadings and
various circumstances which negate the genuineness of the adoption. On presumption
of marriage due to long cohabitation, Mr. Viswanathan cited some authorities, namely,
Thakur Gokalchand vs. Parvin Kumari reported in [1952] SCR 825; Badri Prasad vs.
Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527; S.P.S
Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others reported in
(1994) 1 SCC 460, Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Others
reported in (2005) 2 SCC 244. He also cited various decisions to the effect that there is
no absolute bar for interference on concurrent findings.
Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad And Others on 9 February, 1951
In support of this
contention, he cited Srinivas Ram Kumar vs. Mahabir Prasad and Others, [1951]
SCR 277 and M/s Tulsidas Khimji vs. Their Workmen, [1963] 1 SCR 675.
On the factum of adoption, Mr. Narsimha submitted that it has been the case of
the plaintiff and defendant No.2 in O.S. No. 287 of 1984 that defendant No.2 is the
adopted son of defendant No.1 and that Seetharatnam, Srirammurthy and Krishna
Bhagavan constituted a Hindu Joint Family owning the plaint schedule properties. It is
also pleaded that defendant No.1 adopted defendant No.2 from his natural parents as
per Hindu law, customs and usage and in view of the said adoption, defendant No.2 is
entitled to his half share in the said property.
M/S. Tulsidas Khimji vs Their Workmen on 11 April, 1962
In support of this
contention, he cited Srinivas Ram Kumar vs. Mahabir Prasad and Others, [1951]
SCR 277 and M/s Tulsidas Khimji vs. Their Workmen, [1963] 1 SCR 675.
On the factum of adoption, Mr. Narsimha submitted that it has been the case of
the plaintiff and defendant No.2 in O.S. No. 287 of 1984 that defendant No.2 is the
adopted son of defendant No.1 and that Seetharatnam, Srirammurthy and Krishna
Bhagavan constituted a Hindu Joint Family owning the plaint schedule properties. It is
also pleaded that defendant No.1 adopted defendant No.2 from his natural parents as
per Hindu law, customs and usage and in view of the said adoption, defendant No.2 is
entitled to his half share in the said property.
Madhusudan Das vs Smt. Narayani Bai And Others on 25 November, 1982
Mr. Narsimha then attacked the genuineness of the Will. He submitted that D3
and D5 (appellants) relied mostly on the Will Ex-B9 to disprove the contention of the
plaintiff and D2 with regard to the adoption. It was submitted that the High Court upheld
the findings arrived at by the trial Court and the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by
both the Courts below are based on material evidence and based on record and does
not suffer from any perversity so as to warrant interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India by this Court. He also cited few decisions which held that for a
valid adoption the law requires that the adoptive child should be handed over by its
natural parents to the adoptive parents, who shall receive it. He also drew our attention
to the relevant portions of some of the judgments of this Court in Madhusudan Das vs.
Smt. Narayanibai and Others, (1983) 1 SCC 35, Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Smt.
Rup Kanwar, [1962] 1 SCR 477 and L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Tribeni
Devi and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 677.
Lakshman Singh Kothari vs Smt. Rup Kanwar on 22 March, 1961
Mr. Narsimha then attacked the genuineness of the Will. He submitted that D3
and D5 (appellants) relied mostly on the Will Ex-B9 to disprove the contention of the
plaintiff and D2 with regard to the adoption. It was submitted that the High Court upheld
the findings arrived at by the trial Court and the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by
both the Courts below are based on material evidence and based on record and does
not suffer from any perversity so as to warrant interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India by this Court. He also cited few decisions which held that for a
valid adoption the law requires that the adoptive child should be handed over by its
natural parents to the adoptive parents, who shall receive it. He also drew our attention
to the relevant portions of some of the judgments of this Court in Madhusudan Das vs.
Smt. Narayanibai and Others, (1983) 1 SCC 35, Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Smt.
Rup Kanwar, [1962] 1 SCR 477 and L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Tribeni
Devi and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 677.
Sridevi & Ors vs Jayaraja Shetty & Ors on 28 January, 2005
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 & Ors vs.
Jayaraja Shetty & Ors, (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 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.
Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors vs T.C. Sidhan (Dead) on 11 December, 2003
Mr. Narsimha, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the natural
heirs were excluded and legally wedded wife was given a lesser share and, therefore, it
has to be held to be a suspicious circumstance. We are unable to countenance the
said submission. The circumstances of depriving the natural heirs should not raise any
suspicion because the whole idea behind the execution of the will is to be interfered in
the normal line of succession and so natural heirs would be debarred in every case of
the Will. It may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and some cases partly.
This is the view taken by this Court in Uma Devi Nambiar and Others vs. T.C.Sidhan
(Dead) (2004) 2 SCC 321.