Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Will & Succession

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

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw