Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kavita Kanwar vs Mrs. Pamela Mehta on 19 May, 2020
20.2 I note herein that in the judgment of Kavita Kanwar (Supra) this
aspect has also been dealt with. In absence of there being any document to the
said effect i.e. showing the areas and considering the nature of the bequest the
CS No. 16480/16 Page No. 38/48
only inference which can be drawn is to the fact that each party or beneficiary
is entitled to 1/3rd share at the ground floor instead of the earmarked areas as
per portions mark A, B and C. In any scenario the entire Will cannot be
nullified as the testator wishes to give 1/3rd share in the shop to each party -
plaintiff, defendant no.2 and her daughters and to that extent the Will is quite
clear.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
It was observed in that case that the mode of proving a will did
not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document
except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in
the case of a will by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus
CS No. 16480/16 Page No. 29/48
of proving the will was on the propounder and in the absence of
suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will
proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as
required by law was sufficient to discharge the onus. Where,
however, there were suspicious circumstances, the onus would
be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the
Court before the will could be accepted as genuine. If the
caveator alleged undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus
would be on him to prove the same. Even where there were no
such pleas but the circumstances gave rise to doubts, it was for
the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. Further,
what are suspicious circumstances was also considered in this
case. The alleged signature of the testator might be very shaky
and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case
that the signature in question was the signature of the testator
might not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the
signature. The condition of the testator's mind might appear to
be very feeble and debilitated and evidence adduced might not
succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental
capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will might
appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of
relevant circumstances; or the will might otherwise indicate that
the said dispositions might not be the result of the testator's free
will and mind. In such cases, the Court would naturally expect
that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed
before the document was accepted as the last will of the testator.
Further, a propounder himself might take a prominent part in
the execution of the will which conferred on him substantial
benefits. If this was so it was generally treated as a suspicious
circumstance attending the execution of the will and the
propounder was required to remove the doubts by clear and
satisfactory evidence. But even when where there suspicious
circumstances and the propounder succeeded in removing them,
the Court would grant probate, though the will might be
unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations."
(emphasis supplied) 24.3.
Shivakumar vs Sharanabasappa on 24 April, 2020
Suffice would be to point out that in a recent decision in Civil
Appeal No. 6076 of 2009: Shivakumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasppa
& Ors., decided on 24.04.2020, this Court, after traversing
through the relevant decisions, has summarised the principles
governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a Will
as follows:- "1. Ordinarily, a Will has to be proved like any
other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the
satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing
the proof of other documents, in the case of Will too, the proof
with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon.
1