Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Prabh Dayal – Appellant
Versus
Kala Devi (since deceased), through her LRs. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to the appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties (Para 3 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis on the execution of the will (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 23 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 39 , 42) |
| 4. ratio decidendi regarding proof of the will (Para 10 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final order and dismissing the appeal (Para 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree 23.09.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. ( learned Trial Court) were upheld. (For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial court.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 is owner of 3/5th shares each, and plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are owners of 1/10th share in the suit land described in para 1
The burden of proving the execution of a Will rests on the propounder, who must dispel any suspicious circumstances to establish its validity.
(1) Proof of execution of Will – Mere nomenclature of a person in Will as an Identifier is not sufficient to hold that Will was not attested by two witnesses.(2) High Courts should restrain itself fr....
A will's validity requires proof of execution, with the burden resting on its propounder to eliminate any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
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....
Propounder proves Will via scribe and attesting witnesses; minor contradictions and beneficiary caregiver presence not suspicious circumstances; second appeal High Court cannot re-appreciate 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
