SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 889

HIRDESH
Naresh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Public At Large – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Nirmal Sharma for appellants; Hridayesh Kumar Shukla for respondents No. 2 to 7.

ORDER

1. By way of instant misc. appeal under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC, appellants have challenged the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Bhind in Misc.Civil Case No.34 of 2016, whereby the application filed by appellants under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for probate of ''Will'' in regard to movable and immovable properties of deceased Bitta Bai, has been rejected.

2. Necessary facts for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that as per averments of appellants, they are the nephews of deceased- Bitta Bai, who was a Teacher in Government High School, Kanawar and had passed away on 19.11.2008. Within a year of her marriage, Jahan Singh, husband of Bitta Bai, had also passed away and she was living in her birthplace Kanawar Village since she had no children, where she was posted as a Teacher and lived with their father - Munshi Singh, for the rest of her life and after death of their father Munshi Singh, she lived with them. It was further alleged that she had brought up them and they considered her as their aunt as well as mother and used to serve and flatter her. She had appointed them as nominees in the nomination form of all her FDRs, bank

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top