Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shiv Dayal – Appellant
Versus
Kanshi Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for declaration of wills as void. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition to the wills based on mental capacity and execution. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 3. trial court's findings on execution of the will. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. mere presence of beneficiary not sufficient for suspicion. (Para 15 , 20 , 22) |
| 5. appeal allowed; lower court's decision restored. (Para 39 , 40) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chachiot at Gohar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that the Wills dated 20.03.2007 and 11.04.2007 stated to have been executed by Dharam Chand were null and void, which had no binding effect upon
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
(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....
Proof of execution of Will – There can be no interference to Will which stands proved unequivocally.
Precise compliance with statutory execution and proof requirements for Wills is necessary, especially when involving Pardanashin individuals; the burden of proof lies on those asserting the validity ....
A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstan....
The burden of proof for the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, who must dispel any doubts regarding its execution, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances.
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
