MADHUKAR D. SHENDE versus TARABAI ABA SHEDAGE

MADHUKAR D. SHENDE versus TARABAI ABA SHEDAGE

The will propounded by the plaintiff was adequately proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and courts below committed a legal error by accepting suspicion and conjecture in the absence of concrete opposing evidence. Previous litigation between the same parties regarding the same will is a relevant piece of evidence. As defendant's challenge lacked proper pleadings and no medical evidence was necessary, the will should be accepted.

Parties
Appellant: Madhukar D. Shende; Respondent: Tarabai Aba Shedage
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Proof of Will, Burden of Proof, Registered Will, Suspicious Circumstances, Res Judicata
Succession Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Proof of Will Burden of Proof Registered Will Suspicious Circumstances Res Judicata

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madhukar D. Shende

Appellant

Tarabai Aba Shedage

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will dated 22nd September 1963 executed by Bhagubai in favour of Chingubai was duly proved
  2. 2 Whether the approach adopted by the lower courts in appreciating proof of the will was erroneous under law
  3. 3 Whether findings in earlier litigation relating to the same will but a different property are relevant in the present suit

Ratio Decidendi

The will propounded by the plaintiff was adequately proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and courts below committed a legal error by accepting suspicion and conjecture in the absence of concrete opposing evidence. Previous litigation between the same parties regarding the same will is a relevant piece of evidence. As defendant's challenge lacked proper pleadings and no medical evidence was necessary, the will should be accepted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of Trial Court, first Appellate Court and High Court set aside
  • Suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed