Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.31 seconds)
Sampath vs Dhanaraj
cites
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kalidindi Venkata Subbaraju & Ors vs Chintalapati Subbaraju & Ors on 21 November, 1967
25.In my considered opinion, especially, when it comes to
unregistered Wills, the burden would be much heavier on the propounder
and to allow someone to knock off valuable immovable property on the
strength of an unregistered Will, without proof, merely because it has
been executed more than 30 years back and would be entitled to draw
presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act would play
havoc and result in deprivation of valuable rights of bonafide title holders
and legal representatives who would otherwise be entitled or have been in
enjoyment of the properties, by way of intestate succession or under other
registered documents. Thus, I am not in agreement with the contentions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24/27
S.A.No.559 of 2017
of the learned counsel for the appellants that I am obliged to follow the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interpretation of
principles of precedents and be bound by the earlier three Judge Bench
judgments in K.V.Subbaraju's, case, Bharpur Singh's case as well as
M.B.Ramesh's case are not binding precedents under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
Munnalal Rajwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh 18 Wps/5587/2018 ... on 29 August, 2018
However, a contrary view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23/27
S.A.No.559 of 2017
Court in K.V.Subbraju's case following the earlier Privy Council
decision in Munnalal's case.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharpur Singh & Ors vs Shamsher Singh on 12 December, 2008
25.In my considered opinion, especially, when it comes to
unregistered Wills, the burden would be much heavier on the propounder
and to allow someone to knock off valuable immovable property on the
strength of an unregistered Will, without proof, merely because it has
been executed more than 30 years back and would be entitled to draw
presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act would play
havoc and result in deprivation of valuable rights of bonafide title holders
and legal representatives who would otherwise be entitled or have been in
enjoyment of the properties, by way of intestate succession or under other
registered documents. Thus, I am not in agreement with the contentions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24/27
S.A.No.559 of 2017
of the learned counsel for the appellants that I am obliged to follow the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interpretation of
principles of precedents and be bound by the earlier three Judge Bench
judgments in K.V.Subbaraju's, case, Bharpur Singh's case as well as
M.B.Ramesh's case are not binding precedents under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sarat Chandra Mondal And Ors. vs Panchanan Mondal And Anr. on 11 February, 1953
In fact, even the
Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra Mondal v.
Panchanan Mondal, AIR 1953 Cal 471(DB) = 1953
SCC OnLine Cal 9, held that, the presumption under
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, can be drawn
even in cases of Wills, the genuineness of which is in
controversy before a Court of law. Also held that the
Court can presume that the Will was duly executed
and attested when applying Section 90.