Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 6 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Raja Ram vs Jai Prakash Singh on 11 September, 2019
In the case of Raja Ram vs. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors.
(supra), the Supreme Court held, dealing with the question of
undue influence, that in every caste, creed, relative, and civilized
society, looking after the elders of the society is considered a
sacred and pious duty. It was held that-
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs Hirabai Khandappa Magdum And Ors on 27 April, 1978
30. It is apt to observe that the aforesaid dispute arose from the
partition suit no.21/73 in which both the appellant and the
respondent no.1 herein were parties as legal heirs of deceased
Jamuna Prasad. Even otherwise also, it is settled law that when a
male Hindu dies leaving surviving female relative specified in
Class-1 of the Schedule, his interest in the coparcenary property
has to devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by
survivorship and to carry out this object, the concept of notional
partition has been employed under Explanation-1. This Court finds
support from a Larger Bench judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum (supra) and Division
Bench judgements in Pavitri Devi & Anr. (supra) and Hardeo
Rai (supra).
Leela Rajagopal & Ors vs Kamala Menon Cochran & Ors on 8 September, 2014
23. This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chand Sharma
vs. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors.-(2015)
(Downloaded on 08/04/2020 at 08:28:14 PM)
(14 of 20) [CFA-700/2012]
8 SCC 615 which mandates proof of will strictly in consonance
with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as well as law laid down
in the cases of Leela Rajagopal & Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon
Cocharan & Ors.-(2014) 15 SCC 570, Jaswant Kaur (supra)
and Poornima Devi & Ors. (supra) to the effect that even in the
absence of specific allegation as to the will being surrounded by
suspicious circumstances, it is bounden duty of the Court to
adjudge its validity taking into consideration all the unusual /
unnatural features and suspicious circumstances; but, in the
present case, in considered view of the Court, the appellant has
been able to prove execution of the will by Jamuna Prasad in her
favour free from all suspicion.
Shyama Devi (Smt) And Ors. vs Manju Shukla (Mrs) And Anr. on 12 September, 1994
29. While making this contention, learned senior counsel ignored
that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the case of Shyama Devi
(Smt.) & Ors. (supra), held as under:
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
In H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma
and others, AIR 1959 SC 443, it was observed :
Jagdish Chand Sharma vs Narain Singh Saini (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors on 1 May, 2015
23. This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chand Sharma
vs. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors.-(2015)
(Downloaded on 08/04/2020 at 08:28:14 PM)
(14 of 20) [CFA-700/2012]
8 SCC 615 which mandates proof of will strictly in consonance
with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as well as law laid down
in the cases of Leela Rajagopal & Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon
Cocharan & Ors.-(2014) 15 SCC 570, Jaswant Kaur (supra)
and Poornima Devi & Ors. (supra) to the effect that even in the
absence of specific allegation as to the will being surrounded by
suspicious circumstances, it is bounden duty of the Court to
adjudge its validity taking into consideration all the unusual /
unnatural features and suspicious circumstances; but, in the
present case, in considered view of the Court, the appellant has
been able to prove execution of the will by Jamuna Prasad in her
favour free from all suspicion.