Back
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Shivananda Shenoy, S/o. Late K. Narayana Shenoy – Appellant
Versus
Nithyananda Shenoy, S/o. Late K. Narayana Shenoy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.)
Appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.134/2006 (Old O.S. No.73/1999) dated 8th October 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and ACJM, Karkala.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.
3. That plaintiff filed a suit against defendants seeking relief of partition of 'A' schedule immovable property by dividing the same into three shares by metes and bounds and also deliver one such share to him and also directing the partition of 'B' schedule properties and to pay the plaintiff one share thereof.
4. The records of this appeal reveal that, initially the suit was filed in O.S.No.73/1999 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. In view of the establishment of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Court at Karkala, the said suit came to be transferred to the Jurisdictional Court and renumbered as O.S.No.134/2006.
5. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is his brother and 2nd defendant is his sister. 'A' schedule property was a self acquired property of his father by name late K.Narayana Shenoy by way of grant of
The court established that the validity of a Will must be proven through credible witness testimony, and the burden of proof lies with the propounder to dispel any suspicions regarding its authentici....
The court established that the burden of proving a will lies with the propounder, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist, and that the absence of key evidence can undermine the will's valid....
Point of law : Section 68 only envisages the examination of one among the two attestors to establish the execution of Will.
Secondary evidence – Neither mere admission of a document in evidence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done ....
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, necessitating clear evidence of its validity.
The burden of proof for the genuineness of a will lies with the propounder, and a will may still be valid even if it lacks a signature on every page, provided it meets statutory requirements.
The burden to disprove a Will lies with contesting parties after the propounder meets initial proof requirements; mere non-registration or signature comparison is insufficient to establish suspicious....
A Will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried out into effect after his death. A Will can be executed by every sound perso....
(1) Rejoinder – Pleadings incorporated in a rejoinder will never form part of plaint.(2) Will – Execution – Beneficiary can only prove that Will was properly executed by testator in presence of two w....
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
