THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, B.KEMAL PASHA
Vadakkayil Gopalan – Appellant
Versus
Vadakkayil Paru – Respondent
B.Kemal Pasha, J.—Is it the duty of the propounder of a Will to prove it genuineness and to dispel suspicious circumstances, if any, surrounding its execution even when the adverse party does not specifically deny the existence of the Will and even when admits its existence? Can the doctrine of dependent relative revocation absolve the burden of the propounder of the earlier Will from proving its genuineness or its due execution, or to dispel the suspicious circumstance, surrounding its execution?
2. By propounding Ex.Al Will dated 24.1.1989 allegedly executed by two sister, namely, deceased Mathu and Paru, the plaintiff has forwarded a claim for partition of the property covered by Ex.Al, after the death of Mathu and during the life time of Paru, who is the first defendant. Mathu died on 2.9.1991, thereby the plaintiff, based on Ex. A1 Will claims half share over the property on the averment that the bequest through Ex. A1 joint Will to the extent it relates to the disposition by Mathu has taken effect or her death.
3. The first defendant Paru has contended that Ex.A1 Will has not come into operation as it stood revoked through the execution of Ex.B1 joint and mutual Will
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma & Ors.
Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur
Rani Purnima Debi & Anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb & Anr.
Balathandayutham & Anr. v. Ezhilarsan
Madukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage
Thayyullathil Kunhikannan and 3 Ors. v. Thayullathil Kalliani & 2 Ors.
S.R. Srinivasa & Ors. v. S. Padmavathamma
Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez by LRs & Ors. v. Joosa Mariyan Fernandez & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.