Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bharpur Singh & Ors vs Shamsher Singh on 12 December, 2008
In the decision of Bharpur Singh (supra) it has been categorically stated
that a Will must be proved in terms of the provisions of Section 63(c) of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872. It has
already been discussed in detail about the provisions of Section 63 particularly
sub-section (c) and I have shown how this provision has been complied with by
the propounder. The attesting witness deposed before the Court and clarified the
suspicions raised by the defendants. This decision itself says about Section 68 of
the Evidence Act, 1872 which I have also discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi .. ... vs Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors. .. Respondents on 15 December, 2006
In the case of Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi (supra) the Hon'ble Apex
Court has discussed about a Will if shrouded by suspicious circumstances. In
this decision Court has raised a question whether the disposition by the testator
was unnatural disposition or not. Court has pointed out that no reason was
given as to why he has chosen one son alone for taking entire benefit of legacy
and Doctor was not examined to show whether the testator was mentally fit or
not. In the case at hand the tests are satisfied. Reason has been given by the
testator himself as to why he has bequeathed in favour of his widow and
daughter-in-law. He said that the daughter-in-law came to his family at the age
of twelve years and she was like her daughter and, therefore, after the sudden,
untimely, death of his son, Ashok, he has nothing to do except to protect the
widow left by the said predeceased son and that is the reason he made the Will in
favour of the daughter-in-law and his wife.
Apoline D Souza vs John D Souza on 16 May, 2007
The case of Apoline D'Souza (supra) is totally different. The only attesting
witness admitted that she had put her signature on a handwritten Will whereas
the Will, in fact, being typed in Kannada language and, therefore, Court reversed
the grant of probate holding that due execution of the Will was not proved. The
ratio of the decision is not applicable in the present case.
B. Venkatamuni vs C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors on 19 October, 2006
The last decision in the case of B. Venkatamuni (supra) reiterates the
issue of attesting witness and whether one attesting witness is sufficient
according to the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or not.
The ratio of the decision supports the case of the plaintiff.