Supreme Court of India Judgements

47020 Judgements hosted as on 04/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Will & Succession

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1451 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. S. DINACHANDRAN Vs. SHYLA JOSEPH AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Will & Succession

Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Section 306 — Abatement of suits — Claim for compensation for personal injury under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Right to claim compensation survives to legal representatives upon death of injured claimant, irrespective of cause of death — Amendment to Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from 01.04.2022 is retrospective and applicable to pending appeals — Preliminary objection by insurance company regarding abatement of appeal on death of claimant rejected

Sep 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1177 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHANNALAL ALIAS DHANRAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. Vs. NASIR KHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria,…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925, Sections 63, 68 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 — Proof of Will — Propounder has to prove due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances — Suspicious circumstances include shaky signature, feeble mind, unfair disposition, propounder benefiting significantly — Absence of reasoned disinheritance of natural heir, especially wife, qualifies as a suspicious circumstance — Such omission raises doubt about free disposing mind of testator.

Jul 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 866 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR Vs. JAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.…

Joint Family Property Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RENAVVA @ LAKSHMI AND OTHERS Vs. SHANTILKUMARSWAMY R. SUBRAMANYA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Special Leave…

C P C Will & Succession

Genuineness of Will and Partition Suit — The Court emphasizes that in a partition suit where a Will is challenged, the genuineness of the Will must be determined as a necessary step to resolve the dispute over the property — Delays in deciding this issue should be minimized to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 726 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU — Appellant Vs. SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay…

Joint Family Property Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death – Once that assumption has been made for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased, one cannot go back on the assumption and ascertain the shares of the heirs without reference to it, and all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the shares of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life-time of the deceased.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DERHA — Appellant Vs. VISHAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4494 of…

Will & Succession

Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances, as the testator was in good health and senses, the scribe and one of the witnesses were consistent, the testator had left sufficient property for his widow and daughter, and the respondent had taken care of the testator and his property – It also held that the high court was justified in interfering with the first appellate court’s findings, as they were perverse and contrary to the evidence on record

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANGAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NAVAMANI AMMAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8935…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – The first defendant denied selling the property to the plaintiff and asserted that her father had executed a will dated 23.03.1977 in favour of her son ‘M’ (the second defendant), who was the rightful owner of the property -Court held that the Will was duly proved by the evidence of the scribe and the attestors and that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was invalid as the legatee under the will, ‘M’ was not a party to it.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAVITRI BAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SAVITRI BAI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Joint Family Property Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1955 – Section 16 – Partition Suit – Entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriages – If a marriage is considered void or invalid, the children born from that marriage still have a legal right to inherit their parent’s property

Jan 21, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Education

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw