Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Will & Succession

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Execution of unprivileged Wills — The person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well as the two attesting witnesses deposed to support the case of the original plaintiff, but both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieved their testimony. The thumb impression of ‘K’ was not matched. There was contradiction in the evidences of attesting witnesses as regards the place of execution. The requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be said to have been fulfilled by mechanical compliance of the stipulations – – An enquiry of such nature was impermissible while hearing an appeal under S 100 of the CPC

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose,…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 70 – Revocation of unprivileged Will – In view of Section 70, revocation can be made only by following modes: (a) By Execution of another Will or codicil. (b) A writing executed by the testator declaring an intention to revoke the Will and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will is required to be executed. (c) By burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  BADRILAL — Appellant Vs. SURESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 6524…

Will & Succession

Indian Succession Act S 63 & Indian Evidence Act S 68 have been duly complied with in proving Exhibit P4 (Will). HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. PRABHAKARA — Appellant Vs. BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 273(b) – Partition suit – Transfer of – Virtue of Proviso (b) of Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, any letters of administration granted by the District Court, Saket cannot have effect in other States unless the value of the property affected by the grant and located beyond the limits of the State, does not exceed Rs.10,000/.

Feb 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No.…

Will & Succession

Succession certificate – Transfer of proceedings – Parties shall produce the copy of the Settlement Agreement and the copy of this order before the Court where the proceedings are pending or before the Authorities who hold the properties of the deceased or the companies which owe money or in which shares are held by the deceased, so that they act accordingly to the satisfaction of both the parties

Feb 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH KRITI AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. VEENA RASTOGI — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 166 of 2019 Decided…

Will & Succession

It is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party – When the adoption ceremony, is mentioned in the registered adoption deed, which was questioned in the suit, there is absolutely no reason for not raising specific plea in the suit and to file application at belated stage to summon the record

Nov 9, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BIRAJI @ BRIJRAJI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SURYA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.Subhash Reddy and M.R.Shah, JJ.…

Will & Succession

The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.(ii) rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 subject to Section 6(1) (iii) coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.(iv) The provisions of the Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son  in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. (v) A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. (vi) The daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6.

Aug 11, 2020 sclaw

The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw