Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
P.R. Kannaiyan (Died) vs Ramasamy Mandiri on 28 July, 2005
In the decision reported in 2005(4) CTC 457 [P.R.Kannaiyan (died) and others Vs. Ramasamy Mandiri], a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows_
"36.
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
Similarly, in the decision reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 [Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another] it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court as follows_
"36.The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. ..
Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh vs Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh on 7 January, 1969
39.In this regard, it would be appropriate to place a reference in the judgment reported in 1969 (1) SCC 386 [Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh Vs. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh], wherein it has been held as follows_
"6.... The law on this aspect of the case is well settled. Of course there is no presumption that a Hindu family merely because it is joint, possesses any joint property. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the first instance upon the person who claims it as coparcenary property. But if the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. This is however, subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate.
Ramabai Padmakar Patil (D) Through Lrs. ... vs Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande And Ors on 14 August, 2003
79.If a will appears on the face of it to have been duly executed and attested in accordance with the requirements of the statute, a presumption of due execution and attestation applies.
In (2003) 8 SCC 537 [Ramabai padmakar Patil Vs. Rukninibai Vishnu Vekhande], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the examination of one of the attestors is enough to prove the Will. The relevant portions in the said decision read as follows_
9.... As discussed earlier, in view of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the requirement of law would be fully satisfied if only one of the attesting witness is examined to prove the Will."
Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors on 18 April, 2006
In (2007) 1 SCC 546 [Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows_
77.The High Court has clearly deviated from the settled principle of interpretation of the Will. The Court does not sit in appeal over the right or wrong of the testator's decision. The Court's role is limited to examining whether the instrument propounded as the last will of the deceased is or is not that by the testator and whether it is the product of the free and sound disposing mind. It is only for the purpose of examining the authenticity or otherwise of the instrument propounded as the last will, that the Court looks into the nature of the bequest.
Muncipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Lala Pancham Of Bombay & Others on 1 October, 1964
38. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: Lala Pancham & Ors. (supra) ].
Kothanramappa vs Thimmaiah on 4 April, 2006
17.The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has also placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2006(3) MLJ 82 [Kothanramappa Vs. Thimmaiah and others], wherein it has been observed as follows_
"15.In this context, it will be useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramaiah and another Vs. Pechi Ammal and others, 1977 TLNJ 7, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held thus_
"If the properties are acquired by a manager of a Hindu joint family and if those properties stand in his name and if such acquisitions are made in the course of his management as manager of the joint family, then the burden shifts on him to establish that such properties are his own and they are not joint family properties. In a case where such acquisitions are questioned, it is not for the challenging co-parcener to establish as already expressed by us; but it is for the challenging manager to show by independent evidence that the acquisitions made by him and in his name are the result of an independent activity of his, totally unconnected with the joint family nucleus or its income. These are well established propositions."