Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Will & Succession

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…

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…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw