Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.26 seconds)Bharpur Singh & Ors vs Shamsher Singh on 12 December, 2008
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharpur
Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, reported in
(2009) 3 SCC 687 has held that it may be true that
Will was a registered one, but the same by itself
would not mean that the statutory requirements of
proving the Will need not be complied with. In terms
of Section 63(c), Succession Act, 1925 and Section
68, Evidence Act, 1872, the propounder of a Will
must prove its execution by examining one or more
attesting witnesses and propounder of Will must
prove that the Will was signed by the testator in a
sound and disposing state of mind duly
understanding the nature and effect of disposition
and he put his signature on the document of his own
free Will.
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
"31. One of the celebrated decisions of
this Court on proof of a will,
in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.
Thimmajamma [H. Venkatachala
Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR
1959 SC 443] is in H. Venkatachala
Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, wherein
this Court has clearly distinguished the
nature of proof required for a testament
as opposed to any other document. The
relevant portion of the said judgment
reads as under: (AIR p. 451, para 18)
"18. ... The party propounding a
will or otherwise making a claim
under a will is no doubt seeking to
prove a document and, in deciding
how it is to be proved, we must
inevitably refer to the statutory
provisions which govern the proof
of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of
the Evidence Act are relevant for
this purpose. Under Section 67, if a
document is alleged to be signed by
any person, the signature of the said
person must be proved to be in his
handwriting, and for proving such a
handwriting under Sections 45 and
47 of the Act the opinions of experts
and of persons acquainted with the
handwriting of the person concerned
are made relevant. Section 68 deals
with the proof of the execution of
the document required by law to be
attested; and it provides that such a
document shall not be used as
evidence until one attesting witness
at least has been called for the
purpose of proving its execution.
These provisions prescribe the
19 W.P. No.8166/2024
requirements and the nature of proof
which must be satisfied by the party
who relies on a document in a court
of law. Similarly, Sections 59 and
63 of the Succession Act are also
relevant. Section 59 provides that
every person of sound mind, not
being a minor, may dispose of his
property by will and the three
illustrations to this section indicate
what is meant by the expression "a
person of sound mind" in the
context. Section 63 requires that the
testator shall sign or affix his mark
to the will or it shall be signed by
some other person in his presence
and by his direction and that the
signature or mark shall be so made
that it shall appear that it was
intended thereby to give effect to
the writing as a will. This section
also requires that the will shall be
attested by two or more witnesses as
prescribed. Thus, the question as to
whether the will set up by the
propounder is proved to be the last
will of the testator has to be decided
in the light of these provisions. Has
the testator signed the will? Did he
understand the nature and effect of
the dispositions in the will? Did he
put his signature to the will
knowing what it contained? Stated
broadly it is the decision of these
questions which determines the
nature of the finding on the question
of the proof of wills. It would prima
facie be true to say that the will has
to be proved like any other
document except as to the special
requirements of attestation
20 W.P. No.8166/2024
prescribed by Section 63 of the
Indian Succession Act. As in the
case of proof of other documents so
in the case of proof of wills it would
be idle to expect proof with
mathematical certainty. The test to
be applied would be the usual test of
the satisfaction of the prudent mind
in such matters."
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2022
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra
Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated
06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 has
held as under:
Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi .. ... vs Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors. .. Respondents on 15 December, 2006
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan
Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and
others, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 433 has held that
mere proof that testator had signed the Will is not
enough. It has also to be proved that testator has
signed out of his free will having a sound disposition
of mind and not a feeble and debilitated mind,
understanding well the nature and effect thereof. The
Court will also not refuse to probe deeper in the
matter merely because propounder's signature on the
Will is proved.
Balwant Singh And Anr. vs Daulat Singh (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. on 7 July, 1997
In the case of Balwant Singh v.
Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in
(1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an
occasion to consider the effect of
mutation and it is observed and held that
mutation of property in revenue records
neither creates nor extinguishes title to
the property nor has it any presumptive
value on title. Such entries are relevant
only for the purpose of collecting land
revenue. Similar view has been
expressed in the series of decisions
thereafter.
Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008
This Court in Anil
Kak v. Sharada Raje [Anil
Kak v. Sharada Raje, (2008) 7 SCC
695] opined that the court is
required to adopt a rational
approach and is furthermore
required to satisfy its conscience as
existence of suspicious
circumstances plays an important
role, holding: (SCC p. 714, paras
52-55)
25 W.P. No.8166/2024
'52. Whereas execution of
any other document can be
proved by proving the
writings of the document or
the contents of it as also the
execution thereof, in the event
there exists suspicious
circumstances the party
seeking to obtain probate
and/or letters of
administration with a copy of
the will annexed must also
adduce evidence to the
satisfaction of the court before
it can be accepted as genuine.