IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V.K. Jain, J.
Anand Burman - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Test Cas 25 of 2010
Decided On : 27-07-2012
V.K. Jain, J.
1. This is a petition under Sections 276 read with 227 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of a Will executed by late Smt. Sudha Burman on 26.12.2008.
2. It is alleged in the petition that late Smt. Sudha Burman, mother of petitioner herein, died at New Delhi on 07.03.2009. She was 75 years old at that time. It is alleged that late Smt. Sudha Burman was survived by two legal heirs namely her husband late Shri Ashok Chand Burman, who died during the pendency of this petition and her son Dr. Anand C. Burman who is the only surviving petitioner. The disposition of her properties by late Smt. Sudha Burman was in the following manner:
a. Out of her estate a sum of Rs.5 crores or mutual funds worth Rs.2 crores be paid to her daughter in law Ms. Minnie Burman, w/o Dr. Anand Burman.
b. A sum of Rs.5 crores be paid to her son Dr. Anand Burman.
c. A sum of Rs.2 crores be paid to her granddaughter in law Ms. Shivani Burman w/o Shri Aditya Burman.
d. A sum of Rs.2 crores be kept in trust with her son Dr. Anand Burman for the benefit of Mr. Aditya Burman which would be paid by Dr. Anand Burman in his discretion at an appropriate time either to Mr. Aditya Burman or to any other person, company or entity wherein. Mr. Aditya Burman has an interest as may be considered appropriate by Dr. Anand Burman.
e. A sum of Rs.2 crores be paid to her granddaughter Ms. Anisha Burman.
f. A sum of Rs.20 in lac be paid in cash to her sister in laws Ms. Asha Burman w/o Late G.C. Burman, Mrs. Indu Burman w/o Sidharth Burman and Mrs. Monika Burman w/o Sh. V.C. Burman.
g. A sum of Rs.1 lac be paid to her assistant Sh. Anil Duggal and 7 gold ginnies in favour of his wife.
h. Entire jewellery lying in the lockers or at home be entrusted to my daughter in law Mrs. Minnie Burman.
i. Jewellery worth Rs.1 crore be given to her granddaughter Ms. Anisha Burman.
j. Jewellery worth Rs.1 crore be given to her granddaughter in law Ms. Shivani Burman.
k. Mrs. Minnie shall be given jewellery worth Rs.25 lac to Mrs. Natasha Kapur w/o Sh. Sanjay Kapur. Remaining jewellery will belong to Mrs. Minnie Burman.
l. Equity share holdings held by the deceased in M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. were bequeathed 50% in favour of her husband Mr. Ashok Chand Burman and remaining 50% to her daughter in law Mrs. Minnie Burman.
3. The Will dated 26.12.2008 purports to be attested by two witnesses namely petitioner Dr. Anand C. Burman and one Mr. Ajay Marwah. In his affidavit by way of evidence, Mr. Ajay Marwah has stated that the Will dated 26.12.2008 was executed by late Smt. Sudha Burman wife of Mr. Ashok Chand Burman resident of 2, Rajesh Pilot Road, New Delhi in his presence. He identified signatures of late Smt. Sudha Burman. He also identified his own signatures on the Will Ex.PW1/1, at Point 'C'.
4. Petitioner Dr. Anand C. Burman is the other attesting witness to the Will dated 26.12.2008. In his affidavit by way of evidence, he has stated that he was one of the witnesses to the execution of the said Will and had signed on the last page of the Will as a witness. He further stated that late Smt. Sudha Burman died on 7.3.2009 and her death certificate was Ex.PW1/2.
5. The execution of an unprivileged Will is governed by Section 63 of Indian Succession Act which, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the Testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the Testator, or has received from the Testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the Testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. Section 68 of Evidence Act, to the extent, it is relevant, p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.