Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 18/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Will & Succession

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1956 – Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Property Dispute – The plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to them through an oral partition among the sons of the original owner and was bequeathed to them by ‘A’ through a will – Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the oral partition and the will.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDHIRAN — Appellant Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Joint Family Property Property Matters Will & Succession

A combined reading of Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act would make it manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Therefore, the plaintiff being the widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-inlaw.

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. — Appellant Vs. E. VANAJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli and Prashant…

Joint Family Property Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 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

Sep 12, 2023 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 – Writ petitioner did not have any knowledge about the contents of the Will and the bequest made under the Will – Therefore, this appears to be a case where the writ petitioner is on a treasure hunt, if not a wild goose chase, in the hope that there exists a treasure and that if found, it will be hers – The Court cannot go to the aid of such a person.

May 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. WILSON PRINCE — Appellant Vs. THE NAZAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Will & Succession

Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SM. RANJAN BALA DASI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…

Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8(a) – Estoppel – Mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel – Effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel.

Jan 29, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. KAMALA AND OTHERS AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Will & Succession

Faridkot Royal Family Property Dispute – Raja of Faridkot’s Estate Act, 1948 was not a valid enactment and would not be applicable for succession to the estate of the Ruler – No case was made out for the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession based on said Rule – Order of High Court granting the majority share to Amrit Kaur and Deepinder Kaur is upheld.

Sep 11, 2022 sclaw

CE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – There cannot be a fetter in a owner of a property to give a limited estate if he so chooses to do including to his wife but of course if the limited estate is to the wife for her maintenance that would mature in an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the said Act.

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOGI RAM — Appellant Vs. SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
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