Back
G.S.SINGHVI, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Mahesh Kumar (Dead) By L. Rs. – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the standard to prove a will, emphasizing Section 63 and the need for attestation by two or more witnesses, and the prudent mind/sound mind standard (!) (!) (!) . - It outlines what constitutes suspicious circumstances in will execution and how such suspicions raise the initial onus on the propounder to remove doubts, including cases where the propounder benefits (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes various factors to determine validity of the Will dated 10.2.1992, including attestation details, witnesses’ testimony, and the presence of suspicious circumstances, concluding that the trial court’s findings on execution and validity were erroneous and the Will was validly executed, with the High Court’s contrary conclusions set aside and the trial court’s judgment restored (appeals allowed) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
G. S. Singhvi, J.
1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 22.7.2004 of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby he allowed the appeals filed by respondent No.1 - Vinod Kumar and respondent No.2 - Anand Kumar, set aside judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 passed by II Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Harda (hereinafter described as the ‘trial Court’) and decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1 for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and recovery of rent in respect of the share of Shri Harishankar (father of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2) in the joint family property. The learned Single Judge also declared that respondent No.2 shall be entitled to possession of his share in the suit property in terms of Will dated 9.6.1989 (Ex. P-1) executed by Shri Harishankar.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as the appellant and the respondents.
3. Appellant Mahesh Kumar who is now represented by his legal representatives, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their father were members of the joint family. In 1965, respondent No.2 took his share and separated from the joint family. After 20 years
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
