SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19634

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
VASANTHI RAJAN
– Appellant
Versus

ANU – Respondent


Advocates:
T.V.GEORGE, C.K.VIDYASAGAR, P.CHANDY JOSEPH

JUDGMENT

C.R The main questions came up for consideration are regarding the application of Section 71 of the Evidence Act in contrast with the mandate under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and what are the requirements to be satisfied so as to make the normal procedure under Section 71 of the Act in proof of a testament - Will or Codicil. It is a case wherein, the deceased testator had committed suicide within hours of execution of the alleged Will, Ext.A1, which was relied on by the plaintiff as against the natural legal heirs. The trial court decreed the suit, against which, the natural heirs, the defendants therein came up in appeal.

2. Both the attesting witnesses to the document, PW3 and PW4 turned hostile to the alleged attestation and execution of the Will, but admitted that they stood only as introducing witnesses to the document before the Sub-Registrar. Admittedly, both the attesting witnesses, PW3 and PW4 were acting under the instruction of PW7, the scribe as they were the employees under him. PW3 is a neighbour of the testator, but did not say anything about the required animus attestandi to stand as an attesting witness to the testament of the deceased. PW4 admitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top