Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court upheld a Will in favour of the testator’s sister, holding that the attesting witness proved execution and exclusion of natural heirs alone is not suspicious.
The Court held that Ex.D-15 (09.11.1956) and Ex.D-16 (14.09.1967), being duly proved registered release deeds supported by consideration and corroborated by subsequent conduct, validly severed plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.3 from the coparcenary; that the unregistered palupatti (Ex.D-17 with Ex.D-17(a)) is admissible for collateral purposes to prove severance of joint status as from 11.02.1972 and to explain subsequent separate possession and enjoyment; and on that basis the partitionable pool is Schedule A and items 1–16 of Schedule C, with shares fixed (plaintiff no.1 8/21, defendant no.5…
Source excerpt
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in the review by reappreciating evidence and overturning earlier findings as if sitting in appeal; because the impugned review order went beyond correcting an apparent error on the face of the record, it was set aside and the earlier CRP order of 23.09.2022 was restored, with directions to the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously.
Source excerpt
The 1985 instrument is a settlement (gift by settlement) which vested rights in praesenti in the plaintiff while reserving life interest to the donor and his wife; the plaintiff accepted and acted upon the deed (registration and custody of title deed), so the donor could not unilaterally cancel it and the cancellation deed and subsequent sale deed dated 19.10.1993 are invalid; the High Court judgment declaring the plaintiff's title is confirmed.
Source excerpt
The High Court was correct in holding that an ancillary prayer effectively seeking partition could not be granted when the principal suit for administration of the estate was held non-maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties; accordingly the Trial Court's decree for possession could not stand. Vishnu's sale to the 2nd defendant is valid only to the extent of Vishnu's undivided share in the suit property (held to be 1/5th), and the plaintiff's possession cannot be disturbed until the property is partitioned in accordance with law.
Source excerpt
Section 63(c) must be read disjunctively; testimony of the attesting witness that he saw the testator affix his mark satisfied the requirements of Section 63(c) without need to show that the mark was appended 'at the direction' of the testator, so the High Court erred in holding the Will unproved; the Will and the subsequent sale deeds are valid.
Source excerpt
Where the deceased original applicant had validly applied and satisfied prerequisites and the legal representative informed the authority, submitted documents and payment which the authority accepted and retained, the authority’s delayed cancellation of allotment (after knowledge of death) could not be sustained; accordingly the legal representative is entitled to a fresh allotment on the same terms and conditions with time-limit running from the date of the order.
Source excerpt
The widow’s rights in her deceased husband’s property were extinguished upon her remarriage under Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856; consequently she could not convey ownership to her son of the second marriage. The 1910 transactions at best made her a lessee (a lease limited to twelve years) and did not vest ownership in the plaintiff, so the High Court’s restoration of the trial court decree was set aside and the first appellate court’s dismissal of the suit for partition was confirmed.
Source excerpt
Legal representatives of a deceased sole proprietor are liable to satisfy monetary decrees from the estate that devolves on them, but they are not personally liable to perform contractual obligations that were personal to the deceased and dependent on his skills or expertise; such personal obligations come to an end on the promisor's death and cannot be imposed on his legal heirs unless an express or implied stipulation provides otherwise.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's suit filed in 1993 was barred by limitation and, independently, was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because the plaintiff omitted to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession while being aware that the life-estate holder (and her heir in possession) occupied the property; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the trial and first appellate courts' dismissals restored.
Source excerpt
Explore more
