2017 AP HIGH COURT - JUNE 7



1.  Whether Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is applicable to
the proof of a Will and the failure to apply the same by the Courts below
is a perverse and unsustainable conclusion even concurrently and same
is devoid of merits and even if so, for not specifically raised in the Courts
below, whether open to raise and to consider in the second appeal?

     2.  Whether it is the wording of Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 that is required to be reproduced by a witness in proof of a Will
i.e., one of the attestors required to be examined or it is to be construed of
the twin requirements from a reading of the evidence as a whole in
appreciation with facts and law and, if so, the conclusions arrived by the
Courts below of the Will is not proved by satisfying the twin requirements
of Section 63 of the Act are perverse and unsustainable?

     3.  Whether the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances
even same either under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, if at all to apply,
and even otherwise from an overall reading of the evidence, as a whole,
if taken as proved, to disbelieve the bequeaths therein?

     4. Whether the trial Court and the lower appellate Court went wrong
in rejecting the evidence of PW.3, who is son of Raji Reddy, as a whole,
based on a stray suggestion rather than appreciation of evidence, as a
whole, and if so, what is the impact on the conclusions arrived and is it a
perverse and unsustainable finding therefrom and is liable to be set
aside?

     5. Whether the findings are outcome of ill-appreciation of facts and
law and require interference by this Court while sitting in second appeal
against the concurrent findings?
     6. To what result, respectively?

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

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

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