Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Tulsi Ram v. Kanti Dev
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A.No. 3261 of 1998
Tulsi Ram & Ors.
v.
Kanti Devi
{Decided on 12/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate.
Succession Act, 1963--Will--Suit for possession on basis of Will executed by mother of plaintiff--After death of her father in 1931 property was inherited by plaintiff and her mother in equal shares--Son adopted by her mother in 1934 died in 1940--Will dated 31.7.1979 executed by her mother in favour of plaintiff is valid and legal. (P.11)
—————————
Amrik Singh v. Ajaib Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A.No. 2510 of 2005 & R.S.A.No. 2502 of 2005
Amrik Singh & Anr.
v.
Ajaib Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 12/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta,Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate.
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Joint Property--Co-owner--Partition--Plaintiff failed to established that they were in possession of suit property on basis of finality of partition proceedings effected between parties--Thus, a co-sharer was in possession of same on behalf of all co-sharer--Plaintiff who were co-sharer in suit land were entitled to get a decree for joint possession of suit land. (P.10 & 12)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Joint Property--Right of co-owner--Explained--AIR 1961 PB 528. (P.11)
———————
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A.No. 962 of 1997 & R.S.A.No. 963 of 1997 & R.S.A.No. 964 of 1997
Nachhattar Kaur & Ors.
v.
Amarjit Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 17/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.B.Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate.
(A) Succession Act, 1925--Will--Validity of--Suspicious Circumstances--Test of satisfaction of judicial conscience--In determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the Court is the last Will of the testator, the Court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances, the Court has to be fully satisfied that the Will has been validly executed by the testator. (P.9)
(B) Succession Act, 1925--Will--Suspicious--Merely because daughter of executant is disinherited vide the Will in itself is no ground to hold that Will in question was a suspicious document--Executant was residing with son of his deceased sister and he was looking after him--It would be natural for executant to have executed Will in favour of his nephew excluding his daughter--Moreover, three daughters of the executant were already married and the executant was apparently satisfied that in case of his death, his nephew would perform the marriage of his un-married daughter. (P.14 & 16)
(C) Succession Act, 1925--Will--Registered will--Presumption of truth--Endorsement made by Registrar that Will is read over to executant and he had signed the same after admitting it to be correct has presumption of truth. (P.12)
(D) Succession Act, 1925--Will--Execution of--In order prove execution of Will Registery clerk and attesting witness examined--Both witness proved execution of Will and registration of Will--Execution of Will held to be proved. (P.13)
—————————