Proof of Will – mere expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. – does not make the will invalid as the signature on the Will was admitted = A perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, and in particular that of PW-3 and PW-4, who are the attestors to Ex.A-5-Will and PW-5, the scribe of the Will, shows that nothing is elicited to discredit their testimony regarding the execution of the Will by Vasantha Devi. Except the suggestion consistently put to both the attestors and the scribe that the Will was fabricated using the signatures of Vasantha Devi, nothing of significance which would cast a shadow on the genuineness of the Will has been extracted from these witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses, in my opinion, completely satisfies the requirements of Section 63 of the 1925 Act. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 have expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. Last Testament - though unregistered, last will prevails the earlier registered will deed = Indeed, a perusal of Ex.A-5-Will would show that the testatrix referred to Will dated 11-3-1990 and rescinded the same. From the evidence of appellant No.1, who was examined as DW-1, it is clear that he had admitted the signature of the testatrix while denying the execution of Ex.A-5 Will. In the face of the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5, which remained unshaken, it needs to be held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are able to prove Ex.A-5-Will as true and valid. Even if PW-1 and PW-2 did not have personal knowledge of the manner in which Vasantha Devi executed the Will, the same would not in any manner affect its genuineness No Equities = When the sale deeds are hit by Doctrine of Lis Pendency, cannot claim any Equities=, but he has also sold Ac.5-00 of land which was bequeathed to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.A-5-Will to defendant Nos.8 and 9. It is also not in dispute that these properties were sold after the suit was instituted. In these facts and circumstances, defendant Nos.8 and 9 cannot claim any equities against respondent Nos.1 and 2. At the most, they can proceed against appellant No.1 for recovery of the money paid to him and also for damages, if any. - 2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

Proof of Will – mere expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. – does not make the will invalid as the signature on the Will was admitted = A perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, and in particular that of PW-3 and PW-4, who are the attestors to Ex.A-5-Will and PW-5, the scribe of the Will, shows that nothing is elicited to discredit their testimony regarding the execution of the Will by Vasantha Devi.  Except the suggestion consistently put to both the attestors and the scribe that the Will was fabricated using the    signatures of Vasantha Devi, nothing of significance which would cast a shadow on the genuineness of the Will has been extracted from these witnesses.  The evidence of these witnesses, in my opinion, completely satisfies the requirements of Section 63 of the 1925 Act. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 have expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance.                 Last Testament - though unregistered, last will prevails the earlier registered will deed = Indeed, a perusal of Ex.A-5-Will would show that the testatrix referred to Will dated 11-3-1990 and rescinded the same.  From the evidence of appellant No.1, who was examined as  DW-1, it is clear that he had admitted the signature of the testatrix while denying the execution of Ex.A-5 Will.  In the face of the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5, which remained unshaken, it needs to be held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are able to prove Ex.A-5-Will as true and valid.  Even if PW-1 and PW-2 did not have personal knowledge of the manner in which Vasantha Devi executed the Will, the same would not in any manner affect its genuineness   No Equities = When the sale deeds are hit by Doctrine of Lis Pendency, cannot claim any Equities=, but he has also sold Ac.5-00 of land which was bequeathed to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.A-5-Will to defendant Nos.8 and 9.  It is also not in dispute that these properties were sold after the suit was instituted.  In these facts and circumstances, defendant Nos.8 and 9 cannot claim any equities against respondent Nos.1 and 2.  At the most, they can proceed against appellant No.1 for recovery of the money paid to him and also for damages, if any. - 2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more