//
archives

Bapatla

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Will-Propounder taking prominent part, in execution of and receiving benefit under-Principles regarding scrutiny of evidence of execution and sound disposing state of mind of testator. HEADNOTE: One V lost his father when he was only 10 years old and. thereafter lived along with his mother, in the- house of the first defendant who was his maternal uncle. The first defendant had considerable influence over V as he was slow witted and below the average level of intelligence and, understanding. V died when he was 24 years old. A few. days before his death he executed a will by which he bequeathed his entire property to the first defendant absolutely with a direction that his mother should be maintained, and that, even if his mother lived separately from the first defendant, she was to have only a life interest in certain items which were also to be taken absolutely by the first defendant after her death. At the time of the execution of the -will V was physically in a weak condition. The first defendant took a prominent part in summoning the attesting witnesses and the scribe and in Procuring, writing materials for the execution of the will. Evidence was given on behalf the first defendant that though V was delirious on the day previous to the execution of the will and also subsequent to that date, V was in a normal condition on the date of the execution of the will. On the question of the validity of the will, HELD : The will was not executed in a sound disposing state of mind and was therefore not legally valid. [480,A-B] In a case in which a will is prepared under circumstance which raise the suspicion of the court that it does not express the mind of the testator it is for those who -propound the will to remove that suspicion. What are suspicious circumstances must be judged on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If, however, the Propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers substantial benefits on him that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and in appreciating the evidence in -such a case the court should proceed in a vigilant and cautious, manner. [477 R; 478 A-B] Barry v. Butlin, (1838) 2 Moo. P.C. 480, 482, Fulton v. Andrew, (1875) L.R. 7 H.L. 448, Tyrrell v. Painton, (1894) P. 151, 157, 159 and Sarat Kumari Bibi v. Sakhi Chand & Ors., 56 I.A. 62, applied.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=2120 PETITIONER: GORANTLA THATAIAH Vs. RESPONDENT: THOTAKURA VENKATA SUBBAIAH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/03/1968 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. MITTER, G.K. CITATION: 1968 AIR 1332 1968 SCR (3) 473 ACT: Will-Propounder taking prominent part, in execution of and receiving benefit under-Principles regarding scrutiny of evidence of execution and sound … Continue reading

Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), s. 112-Presumption of law-Conclusive proof of legitimacy-Birth during lawful wedlock. =The presumption under section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is a conclusive presumption of law which can be displaced only by non-access between the parties to the marriage at a time when according to the ordinary course of nature the husband could have been the father of the child. Access and non-access connote existence and non- existence of opportunities for marital intercourse. Karapaya v. Mayandy referred to. Non-access can be proved by evidence direct or circumstantial though the proof of non-access must be clear and satisfactory as the presumption of legitimacy is highly favoured by law. The principle of English common law according to which neither a husband nor a wife is permitted to give evidence of non-access after marriage to bastardize a child born in lawful wedlock, does not apply to legitimacy proceedings in India as no such rule is to be found anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act and the old common law doctrine itself has been abrogated in England by the provisions of section 7 of the Matrimonial Cause Act, 1950. That by the evidence on the record the defendant No. 1 (husband) did not succeed in proving that there was no opportunity for intercourse between him and defendant No. 2 (his wife) at the time when the infant plaintiff was conceived and the High Court erred in holding that there was no opportunity for access between the parties at the material period.

PETITIONER: CHILUKURI VENKATESWARLU Vs. RESPONDENT: CHILUKURI VENKATANARAYANA. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/1953 BENCH: MUKHERJEA, B.K. BENCH: MUKHERJEA, B.K. BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. JAGANNADHADAS, B. CITATION: 1954 AIR 176 1954 SCR 424 CITATOR INFO : R 1971 SC2352 (13) ACT: Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), s. 112-Presumption of law-Conclusive proof of legitimacy-Birth during lawful wedlock. HEADNOTE: The … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,714 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com