defendants Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha (12) were that the will of Narayya (5) was a forgery, and that for this and other reasons the adoption ... impartibility of Nidadavole; but he found that the alleged will of Narayya (5) was a forgery, and that for this and various other reasons
premise that since there are allegations of forgery of the Will, the
original of the same is required by the I.O. for sending ... case does not bar parallel criminal
proceedings regarding the alleged forgery of the Will. In this regard,
reference may be made to the judgment
absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery
will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss ... there is wrongful
gain or loss no offence of fraud or forgery will be made out, it will be desirable to
consider
absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery
will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss ... there is wrongful
gain or loss no offence of fraud or forgery will be made out, it will be desirable to
consider
absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery
will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss ... there is wrongful
gain or loss no offence of fraud or forgery will be made out, it will be desirable to
consider
absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery
will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss ... there is wrongful
gain or loss no offence of fraud or forgery will be made out, it will be desirable to
consider
absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery
will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss ... there is wrongful
gain or loss no offence of fraud or forgery will be made out, it will be desirable to
consider
absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery
will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss ... there is wrongful
gain or loss no offence of fraud or forgery will be made out, it will be desirable to
consider
will. The registration of the will with sub-registrar does not
amount to prove the will as no witness examined to prove the
thumb impression ... about the earlier will dated 02.01.1997 and without production
of the earlier registered will definitely comes to the conclusion that
will in disputed is manipulated
appellants- objected to that will also on
the same grounds and further added that will was a forgery
'Dwjendra Narayan did not dispute ... appellants did not go to the length of characterising the
will as a forgery as they did in the case of the will
propounded
