Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Will & Succession

Will & Succession

Padmanabhaswamy Temple: HELD Shebaitship must devolve in accordance with the applicable law and custom upon his successor; that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Actmust include his natural successors according to law and custom; and that the Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of escheat

Jul 13, 2020 sclaw

  Padmanabhaswamy Temple: “Death of King does not effect Shebaitship” Supreme Court rules that Travancore royal family has control over Temple The Bench held that the death of the King…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 63, 81,89, 268 and 276 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Grant of probate of Will – Prayer of the appellant for grant of probate in relation to the Will in question has been declined concurrently by the Trial Court and by the High Court essentially after finding several unexplained suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in question. HELD mere proof of signatures are not sufficient to prove will. Will in question is required to be considered void as per Section 89 of the Succession Act, when the principal bequeathing stipulation in the Will suffers from uncertainty to the hilt.

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAVITA KANWAR — Appellant Vs. MRS. PAMELA MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Will & Succession

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 and 66 – Secondary evidence – Will – Prove of – It is a settled position of law that for secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be given being the reasons as to why the original Evidence has not been furnished. HELD Needless to observe that merely the admission in evidence and making exhibit of a document does not prove it automatically unless the same has been proved in accordance with the law – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KARAMJIT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Will & Succession

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Will – Proof of – Mere proof of the document in accordance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act is not final and conclusive for acceptance of a document as a Will – When suspicious circumstances exist and the suspicions have not been removed, the document in question cannot be accepted as a Will – Appeal dismissed

Apr 26, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHARANABASAPPA & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 63, 69 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65(c) – Will – It is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis of the unusual features appearing in the Will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution, that justifies a close scrutiny of the same before it can be accepted.

Mar 21, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHANPAT — Appellant Vs. SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao And Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Will & Succession

HELD “…….. once the testator has given an absolute right and interest in his entire property to a devisee it is not open to the testator to further bequeath the same property in favour of the second set of persons in the same will, a testator cannot create successive legatees in his will. The object behind is that once an absolute right is vested in the first devisee the testator cannot change the line of succession of the first devisee.”

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.S. BHAVANI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M.S. RAGHU NANDAN — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

Will & Succession

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 7 and 11 – Adoption – Two important conditions as mentioned in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption – HELD Appellant was not adopted by the Respondent and her husband – Appellant had failed to prove that she has been adopted by the Respondent and her husband. – Appeal dismissed.

Mar 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. VANAJA — Appellant Vs. M. SARLA DEVI (DEAD) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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