Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)Johnson vs Annie on 21 August, 2014
(i) a person who worked in a medical shop; and (ii) a 22 year old girl, I
concur with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
16 of 22
T.O.S.No.40 of 2001
law does not prescribe that the attesting witnesses should have a
particular or close relationship with the testator or that they should be
persons of a certain social standing. The judgment of the Kerala High
Court in Johnson v. Annie is squarely applicable in this connection.
N.Govindarajan vs N.Leelavathy on 1 July, 2011
(ii) N.Govindarajan vs. Leelavathy and others 2011(5) CTC
287, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held at paragraph 21 that
the conscience of the Court should be satisfied not only with regard to the
execution and attestation of the Will in accordance with the Indian
Succession Act,1925 but also that the Will was the product of the free
http://www.judis.nic.in
11 of 22
T.O.S.No.40 of 2001
volition of the testator. After adverting to several other judgments, the
Court concluded that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the
alleged execution of the Will and therefore refused to interfere with the
order dismissing the testamentary suit.
B. Venkatamuni vs C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors on 19 October, 2006
(iii) B.Venkatamuni vs. C.J.Ayodhya Ram Singh and Ors.
MANU/SC/4692/2006, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it
is not sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements with regard to
the execution and attestation of a Will and that the suspicious
circumstances surrounding the Will are significant and should be taken
into consideration.
Vidyawati vs Man Mohan & Others on 1 May, 1995
Section 15 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 222 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 276 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 290 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Babulal N. Shukla vs Jeshankar N. Shukla on 15 March, 1972
For this principle, he relied upon the judgments of the Calcutta High Court
http://www.judis.nic.in
5 of 22
T.O.S.No.40 of 2001
in Babulal N. Shukla v. Jeshankar N. Shukla, AIR 1972 Cal 494 and
Arijit Mittra v. Goutam Mitter 2008 SCC Online Cal 465, wherein it
was held that the representative of the original defendant cannot raise a
defence that had not been raised earlier by the original defendant.