[Followed]

K. S. Palanisami (Dead) Through Lrs. VS Hindu Community In General And Citizens Of Gobichettipalayam - 2017 3 Supreme 35: "A Will should be construed in accordance with intention of the testators which can be inferred from the language of the Will itself."

* This case appears to state a principle of law that is likely foundational and generally followed in subsequent cases concerning Will construction.

Bhagat Ram VS Suresh - 2004 1 Supreme 451: "Same rules of execution are applicable to a codicil which apply to a Will to which the codicil relates, so also, the evidence adduced in proof of execution of a codicil must satisfy the same requirements as apply to proof of execution of a Will."

* This case sets out a clear legal principle regarding the execution of codicils, which is a standard principle likely followed.

[Distinguished or Clarified]

Benga Behera VS Braja Kishore Nanda - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 751: "The burden of proof of the due execution of a Will lies on the propounder, and compliance with legal formalities is not sufficient when there are suspicious circumstances. The propounder must remove any suspicion by leading appropriate evidence, and the court must not ignore suspicious circumstances and should not close its mind to finding the truth."

* This case emphasizes the burden of proof and the importance of suspicious circumstances in Will cases, which aligns with established legal principles and likely serves as a guiding authority rather than being overruled.

[Legal Principles]

Madhukar D. Shende VS Tarabaiaba Shedage - 2002 1 Supreme 83: "The Courts below adopted an approach not permitted by law in holding that the impugned Will was not proved."

* This case seems to criticize or highlight a mistake in the approach of lower courts, reinforcing the correct legal approach rather than overruled or bad law.