Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Kanhaiyya Lal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Saurabh Lavania, J.)
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Akshat Srivastava, Advocate and learned Standing Counsel who has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Kapil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate who has appeared on behalf of respondents No.4 & 5.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
The court affirmed that an unregistered Will lacks credibility without proper evidence, emphasizing the need for foundational proof for secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Secondary evidence requires cogent evidence of document loss; mere assertions do not suffice under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Secondary evidence may be admissible when the original document is lost or misplaced, provided sufficient justification for its non-production is established.
The court affirmed that procedural integrity mandates timely evidence submission, emphasizing the necessity for documentation to validate claims regarding the authenticity of a Will.
The judgment establishes the admissibility of certified copies of Wills under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the determination of inheritance shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 195....
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, necessitating clear evidence of its validity.
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
