Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.75 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sri Raja Venkata Narasimha Appa Row vs Sri Raja Parthasarathy Appa Row Savai ... on 24 July, 1913
It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense.... But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document, Venkata Narasimhas's case (supra) and Ghanmbal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar, .
Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh vs Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer on 7 November, 1952
(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the Will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory, Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Bakhtra Kuer, .
Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962
(4) The Court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The Court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his Will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. Pearey Lal v. Rameskwar Das, .
Ramachandra Shenoy And Another vs Mrs. Hilda Brite And Others on 1 April, 1963
19. There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment. However, in my view, the said Judgment cannot be of any assistance to the plaintiff. It is a settled position in law that it is not necessary that the Will should be in a particular form. The provisions of the Succession Act clearly lay down that it is not a requirement in law that the Will should be specifically worded or that it should be termed as such. A consistent view which has been taken by the Apex Court is that the intention of the parties has to be taken into consideration including the surrounding circumstances, family relationship, the probability in respect of the use of words used in the particular manner. In the instant case it has come on record that deceased Narayan the father of the appellant herein after partition in 1968 was residing with the appellant and he had, out of his share of 3 acres and 7 gunthas land, sold one acre to the appellant during his lifetime. He continued to stay with him till his death. There was ah altercation between the plaintiff and Narayan and this fact has also come on record. Though the said document is termed as a Will, the intention of the parties is very clear. The trial Court has given a finding of fact after appreciating the evidence that the said document is a Will. The lower appellate Court also has not stated that the said document is not a Will. Even in this view of the matter while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said finding cannot be set aside by re-appreciating the evidence.