Back
MILIND N. JADHAV
Kishore Tulshiram Mantri – Appellant
Versus
Dilip Janak Mantri – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of partition suit and key facts (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims regarding the registered will and change in circumstances (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments for re-evaluation of shares based on will (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. need for final decree application versus execution claim (Para 7) |
| 5. counterarguments contesting the petitioner’s claims (Para 8) |
| 6. key observations on trial and appellate court judgments (Para 9 , 12 , 20) |
| 7. finality in judgments is paramount, barring attempts to revisit closed matters. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. court’s final determination on maintaining decree (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition (Para 28 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nashik (for short the “Executing Court”) in Application filed below Exhibit “89” in Final Decree Application No.7 of 2019. By virtue of order dated 24.11.2022, Executing Court has rejected Application below Exhibit “89” filed by Defendant No.8 – Writ Petitioner seeking framing of issues for deciding the shares of legal heirs of deceased Tulshiram Ratanchandra Mantri and seeking an
Executions courts cannot alter final decrees based on belatedly introduced evidence without due diligence; concealment of known facts undermines later legal claims, affirming principles of constructi....
An executing court cannot modify a final decree based on newly discovered evidence that was not previously disclosed, as this would violate principles of res judicata and due diligence.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the distinction between a Settlement deed and a....
Joint family property laws affirm equal entitlement to heirs in intestate succession, rejecting claims of prior partition absent conclusive evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of wills must be proved in the manner known to law, and failure to do so may result in the wills being disbelieved by the court.
Suit for partition - Partial partition not permissible - Admission of parties - Will duly established and cannot be held to be forge or fabricated one.
The court affirmed that prior final decrees in partition suits are binding and that claims based on wills must be established in separate proceedings.
The court affirmed the validity of a Will executed under proper procedures, ruling that mere relationships or opportunities do not imply undue influence unless proven with clear evidence.
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
