Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 18/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Will & Succession

Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 8, 10, 19 — Property of a male Hindu dying intestate — Devolution of property — Heirs taking property as tenants-in-common and not joint tenants — Each heir having a definite and separate share — No presumption of coparcenary property.—-Section 8 — Property inherited by a son from his father — Son takes the property in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family — Descendants of the heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 613 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DARUBAI AND ANOTHER Vs. KAMALABAI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 263 — Revocation of probate — Limitation — No specific period of limitation prescribed for application for revocation of probate — Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 applies — Right to apply accrues when applicant has knowledge of the facts justifying revocation.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 602 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHIRAJ DUTTA Vs. ANIRBAN SEN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 521 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi,…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 263 — Revocation of probate — Just cause — Fraudulent grant by concealing material facts or false suggestions — Failure to cite necessary parties — Grant of probate is a judgment in rem and binds the world — Persons with even a slight interest, including subsequent transferees from heirs, are entitled to citation before probate is granted — Failure to implead appellants and legal heirs of deceased sons, and to issue citations, constitutes just cause for revocation.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. LEOREX SEBASTIAN AND ANOTHER Vs. SAROJINI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

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…

You missed

Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw