GAUHATI HIGH COURT
C.R. Sarma, J.
Smt. Siba Gogoi —Appellant
versus
Haren Gogoi and Anr. —Respondent
Intest Case Nos. 10 and 11 of 2006
Decided on 13.5.2014
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Section 372 — WILL — Unnatural death of testator — Natural heir deprived from property — PW-1 present from drafting to final execution of WILL — One of beneficiary — WILL disclosed after filing of succession certificate filed by Wife — HELD — WILL not free from doubt — Succession certificate granted to natural heirs i.e. wife & son of deceased. [Paras 43 &44]
Result: Appeals allowed with cost
C.R. Sarma, J.—he above mentioned appeals are directed against the common judgment and order. dated 3.7.2002, passed by the learned District Judge. Tinsukia in Misc (probate) Case No. 114 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 88 of 2002. As both these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order. involving same parties, represented by same sets of Advocate, for the sake of convenience and brevity, I have heard the appeals together and propose to dispose of the said appeals by this common judgment and order.
2. The relevant facts that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, may, in brief, be stated as follows:
(i) The appellant is the wife of late Monoj Gogoi (hereinafter called the deceased) and Master Tusher Gogoi, respondent No. (ii) in Misc. (probate) Case No. 114 of 2002. is their minor son. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the brother and the sister respectively of the deceased-husband of the appellant.
(ii) The said couple, by entering into an agreement of separation. was living separately and the appellant instituted a proceeding, being Misc. (J) Case No. 128 of 2001. under section 18/20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. seeking maintenance lowance for herself and their son from the deceased husband.
(iii) On 21.1.2002, in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2001. the deceased filed an application, seeking conciliation between the couple with a view to continue with their peaceful marital life. The said petition was posted on 29.1.2012 and the same was pending for conciliation. The deceased. being an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation (for short I.O.C.), on his transfer went to Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan and returned to Digboi in the Ist week of April, 2002, But, after his return to Digboi, in the 1st week of April. 2002, the deceased was found missing From 8.4.2002 and his dead body was found floating 02 10.4.2002, in a drain (pond) near his paternal residence. As per postmortem report, he sustained injury caused by blunt object and the cause of death was drowning.
(iv) On his death, the appellant, claiming to be his legal heir. filed an application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 39 of 1925. seeking a succession certificate for herself and their minor son. This application was registered as Misc. (Succession) Case No. 88/2002. The present respondent No. 1 (brother of the deceased) also filed an application [Misc. (probate) Case No. 114/2002), seeking a probate of Will in respect of the properties as mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ of the petition, on the ground that the deceased had executed a Will bequeathing his property in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and his minor son. The said application for probate of Will was registered as Misc. (probate) Case No. 114 of 2002.
The respondent No. 1 in the probate case i.e., wife of the testator contested the claim of the petitioner by filing a written objection. She, challenging the validity, sufficiency. execution. attestation and the period of execution of the Will. contended that the Will was a forged one and that her deceased husband. who expressed his desire to settle the maintenance Case No. 128 of 2001, for the purpose of their reunion. never executed the Will and that his dead body was found in suspicious condition. She also averred that she. being a nominee in respect of the L.I.C. policy and the service record of her deceased husband, was entitled, alongwith her minor son. to inherit the properties left by her said husband. She prayed for dismissal of the application for probate. She also contended that the Will has been fraudulently prepared for depriving her from the property of her husband and that failure of the petitioner to mention about the Will in his objection, dated 17.4.2002. filed before the L.I.C. authority in connection with the claim of the appellant in respect of the L.I.C. benefit of the deceased, indicates that the Will was not in existence till the said date and that the same was subseque
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others
Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others
Savithri and others v. Karthyani Amma and others
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.