Back
S. TALAPATRA
Loknath Bhowmik – Appellant
Versus
Mani Gopal Roy Barman – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This appeal under section 100 of the CPC arises from the concurrent finding of fact relating to valid execution of the Will, purportedly executed by one Alpana Roy Barman (Karmakar) wife of the first respondent and as recorded in the judgment dated 17.12.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court [the court of the Additional District Judge No.2, West Tripura, Agartala] in Title Appeal 57 of 2016. Needless to mention that by the said judgment dated 17.12.2018, the First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment dated 23.07.2016 delivered in Title Suit 03 of 2014 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura.
[2] By the said judgment dated 23.07.2016, the suit instituted by the appellant for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as described in Schedule A which include the schedules B and C. The ownership of the suit land has been claimed by the appellant by virtue of the Will dated 22.11.1989 executed by one Alpana Roy Barman (Karmakar), the testatrix. Along with the declaration as aforestated consequential reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of possession of the land as described in the Schedule B (the part of the Schedu
The propounder of a Will must dispel any existing suspicious circumstances regarding its validity for it to be accepted by the court.
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and validity, and the presence of suspicious circumstances must be specifically pleaded by the opposing party to shift the burden of proof.
The execution of a Will must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, and mere compliance with legal formalities is insufficient.
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 ....
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
The burden of proof for a Will lies with the propounder, requiring clear evidence against suspicious circumstances surrounding its creation.
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....
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
