IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR
Sabhapati Verma – Appellant
Versus
Ved Prakash – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substantial questions of law guiding the appeal (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the will's validity and evidence (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. proof of the will and testimony of witnesses (Para 10 , 21) |
| 4. final judgment based on legal principles and findings (Para 12 , 39) |
| 5. legal standards for proving a will (Para 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 6. findings on the sonship and entitlement to property (Para 26 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Shadab Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. R. S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ''C.P.C.'') against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.2013 passed in Regular Suit No. 1132 of 1988; Sabhapati Verma v. Ram Kishore (Dead) substituted by legal representative Ved Prakash by First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar and judgment and decree dated 3.10.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2013; Sabhapati Verma v. Ved Prakash b
Daya Shankar Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and others
Dhannulal and others v. Ganeshram and another
Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Faggan (Deceased) and others v. Bhagwan Sahai (Deceased) and another
Guro (Smt) v. Atma Singh and others
Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others
Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and others
Moinuddin v. Smt. Kanti and others
Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and others
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) By LRs.
Sarju Parshad v. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh
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 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....
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.
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.