IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.RADHA RANI
BASAVATARAKAM MEMORIAL MEDICAL TRUST – Appellant
Versus
NANDAMURI LAKSHMI PARVATHI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the civil revision petition and trust case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidentiary requirements for proving the will. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis on procedural compliance for proving the will. (Para 5 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 20 , 22 , 30 , 34) |
| 4. legal standards for attestation and proving wills as per relevant statutes. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. final ruling allowing the civil revision petition. (Para 35) |
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, who were the respondents in Trust O.P.No.336 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by its order dated 28.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.3395 of 2018 in the above O.P.
2. The respondent Smt. Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi had filed Trust O.P.No.336 of 2009 under Section 74 of the Indian Trust Act, 1920 to appoint her as Managing Trustee of the petitioner No.1 – Trust in terms of the supplemental Will dated 18.11.1995 executed by Sri late Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao and to direct the trust members and their followers and henchmen not to interfere with her administration in the schedule premises. Sh
Union of India and others v. Narender Singh
Union of India and others v. Ram Kumar Thakur
Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P.
Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Karnataka
M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.Venkata Sastri and Sons and others
Abinash Chandra Bidvanidhi Bhattacharya v. Dasarath Malo
Shiam Sundar Singh v. Jagannath Singh
Chintham Ramanaiah and others v. Yalagala Subbamma 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.