Proof of Will when arose - If a dispute was raised as to the execution and genuineness of a Will, then a question may arise whether the opposite party, who propounded the Will, has proved the same in accordance with law or not. But in the absence of any plea as to casting of any doubt or shadow as to the execution and genuineness of the Will, still would it be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove the said document. The contention of the plaintiff is that there is no obligation to adduce evidence to prove such document, whose execution and genuineness was not disputed - 2015 A.P.(2006) MSKLAWREPORTS


 Coming to the second issue as to the non-adducing of evidence by the plaintiff to prove Ex.A.6 Will, a perusal of the pleadings clearly shows that no doubt was cast either on execution or genuineness of the Will. What was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement was that the suit schedule property was the Stridhana property of first defendant's mother, therefore, the first defendant succeeds to the same with absolute rights, and hence, the sale deed executed by her in favour of the second defendant is valid. Now having lost in their attempt to claim that it is the Stridhana property of the first defendant's mother, the defendants have now turned round to attack the Will executed by Bomma Suryanarayana under Ex.A.6. Though the learned Counsel relied upon various other decisions where certain observations were made that a legal issue can be raised even at a later stage of the proceedings, but here it is not a pure legal issue. If a dispute was raised as to the execution and genuineness of a Will, then a question may arise whether the opposite party, who propounded the Will, has proved the same in accordance with law or not. But in the absence of any plea as to casting of any doubt or shadow as to the execution and genuineness of the Will, still would it be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove the said document. The contention of the plaintiff is that there is no obligation to adduce evidence to prove such document, whose execution and genuineness was not disputed.- 2015 A.P.(2006) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS