GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N. Chaudhury, J.
Ramendra Shah —Appellant
versus
Shew Ram Shah & Ors. —Respondents
Intest. Cas. No.3 of 2005
Decided on 26.2.2015
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed application under Section 276 of 1925 Act stating that the property belonged to one Murti Devi and she died issueless and that during her lifetime she executed a register Will dated 26.06.1986 in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime the apposite party no. 4 filed another application u/s 276 alleging that the Will of the Testatrix in favour of petitioner was forged and that she had executed Will 02.12.1992 in his favour. The Plaintiff however, proved the Will by producing attesting witnesses, whereas the defendant fails to proved his stand taken by him.
Findings of the Court
It is thus clear that the attesting witness having been examined and the witness having claimed that testatrix had executed the Will being in sound health, the burden of proof of the propounder has definitely been discharged. Once the propounder discharges his burden to prove execution of a Will being in sound and disposing of the Will. The objector has to make allegation in the pleading that there is suspicious circumstance. Initial burden will be on the objector to make out a prima facie case of suspicious circumstances and in that event it will be duty of the propounder to expel all iota of suspicion by leading appropriate evidence. The plaintiff, succeeded in proving will in his favour and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff held proper.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
N. Chaudhury, J.—By this appeal, common judgment passed by learned District Judge, Dhubri in miscellaneous Probate case being T.S.(P) No. 18/1999 and T.S. (P) No. 19/1999 has been challenged by the unsuccessful party saying that the learned Probate Court committed error in allowing probate in favour of the applicant in T.S.(P) No. 19/1999 and rejecting the prayer of the applicant in T.S. (P) No. 18/1999.
2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the learned District Judge at Dhubri on 20.12.1993 stating that the property described in Schedule A and B to the petitioner originally belong to one Murti Devi Shah who died on 01.01.1993 without leaving any son or daughter. She during her life time had executed a registered Will being No. 2813 dated 26.06.1986 in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the schedule properties in his favour. The testatrix was survived by as many as 8 (eight) near relatives name of whom were furnished in paragraph 7 of the application. It was claimed that there was no other Will or letters of administration left by the testatrix and so necessary order need be passed for granting probate in favour of the petitioner. The case was registered as Misc. (P) Case No. 213/1993 and notices were issued not only to the near relatives but also to the general citations whereupon opposite parties No. 4 to 8 herein appeared and submitted written objection. In paragraph 6 of the objection, it was stated that Will was never the last Will and testament of Murti Devi Shah and that one annexed to the petition is forged and manufactured for the purpose of application. Rather, it was stated that the testatrix was all along living with her only brother Ram Naresh Shah and his family in the Railway Lease Hold Waste Land at Dhubri town which stood in her name. She was looked after by the opposite parties till she died. Petitioner was a resident of Bihar and he came to Dhubri and settled there after matrimonial tie with a Muslim woman and was residing at Bidyapara. He never visited the deceased and also deceased never visited the petitioner. She, before her death on 01.01.1993, was leaving with the opposite parties and funeral ceremony and Shraddha was performed by the opposite parties. Long before her death, she executed a Will on 02.12.1992 being in sound and good health in favour of the objector, namely, Smti. Munia Devi Shah and already another application registered as Misc. (P) Case No. 33/1994 was pending in respect of probate by that Will. In paragraph 13, it was specifically claimed that in view of the last Will of the deceased testator on 02.12.1992, the probate proceeding has become void ab-initio. With these prayers, the opposite parties claimed that the proceeding be dismissed.
3. In the mean time the opposite party No. 4 in Misc. (P) Case No. 213/1993, had instituted another application under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act and the same was registered as Misc. (P) Case No. 33/1994 of the same court. In this case it was the stand taken by the petitioner therein that Munia Shah being owner of the schedule land died in her own house on 01.01.1993 and she executed the Will dated 02.12.1992 cancelling her previous Will and Codicils. The testatrix had no issue and her husband had died long ago. The testatrix was survived by 8 near relatives mentioned in paragraph 4 of this application. It was prayed in this application that probate of the Will dated 02.12.1992 be granted in favour of Munia Devi Shah. Petitioner in Misc. (P) Case No. 213/1993 appeared in this proceeding as respondent No. 5 and submitted written objection stating that the latter Will was forged and manufactured to gain over the property left by the deceased. It was stated that during December, 1992 when Dhubri town was under promulgation of curfew, the petitioner Munia Devi and others wanted to get signature of the deceased on a Will prepared by one Shankar Mohuri b
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.