Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi .. ... vs Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors. .. Respondents on 15 December, 2006
(Mrudula Jyoti Rao case [(2006) 13 SCC 433 : (2006) 14 Scale
186] , SCC pp. 447-48, para 34)
"34. ... (i) when a doubt is created in regard to the
condition of mind of the testator despite his
signatures on the will;
Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002
33. The burden of proof that the will has been validly
executed and is a genuine document is on the
propounder. The propounder is also required to prove
that the testator has signed the will and that he had put
his signatures out of his own free will having a sound
disposition of mind and understood the nature and
effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is
brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be
held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be
on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading
sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In
the case of proof of will, a signature of a testator alone
would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind
may appear to be very feeble and debilitated.
However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue
PC 42440/2016
Samrath Singh & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page No. 13/25
influence is raised, the burden would be on the
caveator. (See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba
Shedage [(2002) 2 SCC 85] and Sridevi v. Jayaraja
Shetty [(2005) 2 SCC 784] .) Subject to above, proof
of a will does not ordinarily differ from that of
proving any other document."
Sridevi & Ors vs Jayaraja Shetty & Ors on 28 January, 2005
33. The burden of proof that the will has been validly
executed and is a genuine document is on the
propounder. The propounder is also required to prove
that the testator has signed the will and that he had put
his signatures out of his own free will having a sound
disposition of mind and understood the nature and
effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is
brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be
held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be
on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading
sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In
the case of proof of will, a signature of a testator alone
would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind
may appear to be very feeble and debilitated.
However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue
PC 42440/2016
Samrath Singh & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page No. 13/25
influence is raised, the burden would be on the
caveator. (See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba
Shedage [(2002) 2 SCC 85] and Sridevi v. Jayaraja
Shetty [(2005) 2 SCC 784] .) Subject to above, proof
of a will does not ordinarily differ from that of
proving any other document."
Ramabai Padmakar Patil (D) Through Lrs. ... vs Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande And Ors on 14 August, 2003
In Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu
Vekhande [(2003) 8 SCC 537] the Hon'ble Supreme court held:
Gurdial Kaur And Others vs Kartar Kaur And Others on 26 March, 1998
In Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur [(1998) 4 SCC 384]
wherein it was held:
Kavita Kanwar vs Mrs. Pamela Mehta on 19 May, 2020
26. Ld. counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kavita
Kanwar vs Ms. Pamela Mehta & Ors. and argued that all
legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the
document is accepted as the last will of the testator. It is
PC 42440/2016
Samrath Singh & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page No. 16/25
submitted that when the propounders themselves take a
prominent role in the execution of will which confers on them the
substantial benefits, then it creates serious doubt on the
authenticity and validity of the Will. The respondents have relied
upon the judgment in the matter of N. Kamalam (dead) & ors. vs
Ayyasamy & Ors MANU/SC/0422/2001 and submitted that in
the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the effect
of scribing the signatures on the part of the scribe can not be
identified to be of the same status as that of the attesting
witnesses. It is argued that Mr. M.C. Bajaj signed the impugned
will as a scribe not as the attesting witness; that there is a thick
cloud of suspicious circumstances hovering over the impugned
will and therefore, the will can not be relied upon; that the
testator was uneducated and was aged about 80 years and
therefore, the petitioner dominated his will to get the will
executed in their favour; and that registration of the will is
inconsequential without proving the same in accordance with
section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. It is argued that PW-1
M.C. Bajaj deposed in a mechanical manner and his testimony
creates a serious doubt that due to his mechanical deposition.
Rabindra Nath Mukherjee& Anr vs Panchanan Banerjee (Dead)By Lrs. & Ors on 9 May, 1995
29. In the present case, by way of will the testator has
changed his line of succession. So obviously, there would be
PC 42440/2016
Samrath Singh & Anr. vs State & Ors. Page No. 18/25
grievance of the LR's who did not get anything from the will.
Their grievance may be genuine or it may be of a disgruntled son
or daughter for not getting anything from his or her father. It is
worth mentioning that will is always executed for the exclusion
of the natural heirs. Exclusion of other children of the testator by
itself is not a suspicious circumstances. The owner can dispose of
his self acquired property in the manner he likes. Here reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Ravindra Nath Mukherjee vs Panchnan Banerjee 1995
(4) SCC 459 wherein it has been held as under:-