Supreme Court of India Judgements

46800 Judgements hosted as on 29/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Will & Succession

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…

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. )…

You missed

POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus

Jun 29, 2025 sclaw
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
Anticipatory Bail Cr P C

Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Social Media Posts — Content-Related Offenses — Retaliatory Action — Quashing of Proceedings — While the court made no final determination on the nature of the petitioner’s social media posts, it acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the tweets were ‘retaliatory’ and were made in response to an incident involving a social media influencer. This assertion formed part of the petitioner’s argument for quashing or consolidating the numerous FIRs, suggesting a motive beyond simple offensive content.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw