Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Succession law

SAVITHRI AND ORS. versus KARTHYAYANI AMMA AND ORS.

The Will executed by Sankaran Nair was validly executed and not vitiated by suspicious circumstances. The Will was registered; the testator was in sound disposing state of mind; there was compliance with statutory requirements; the propounder discharged the burden of proof. Mere deprivation of the natural heir (the son) was justified by the facts (estrangement and lack of care) and does not, itself, amount to suspicious circumstances.

Source excerpt

  • Will—execution
  • Will—suspicious circumstances
  • Onus of proof
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Evidence of execution
Read case analysis
Succession law

SRIDEVI AND ORS. versus JAYRAJA SHETTY AND ORS.

In the absence of suspicious circumstances and on the testimony of the scribe, two attesting witnesses, and a handwriting expert—as well as the satisfactory explanation for procedural delays—there is sufficient proof of due execution of the Will by the testator in sound disposing mind. The onus on the propounder is thus discharged, and the mere presence of a beneficiary at the time of execution or delay in registration do not render the Will invalid. The Supreme Court affirms the decisions of the lower courts upholding the validity of the Will.

Source excerpt

  • Will
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Burden of proof
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Succession law

MEENAKSHIAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus CHANDRASEKARAN AND ANR.

In absence of a plea of forgery at the trial stage, and with the propounder having proved execution, attestation, and genuineness of the will, the finding of forgery by the appellate court is erroneous; the onus to prove forgery or undue influence lies with those making such allegations, which was not discharged.

Source excerpt

  • Proof of will
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Undue influence
  • Forgery
  • Burden of proof
Read case analysis
Succession

SMT. GURO versus ATMA SINGH AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that High Court was not justified in reversing the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court regarding the suspicious features of the will, including the testator's illness, thumb impression, contradictory statements of respondent, and unexamined witnesses. The will was not proved to be a genuine document executed by Ganga Singh.

Source excerpt

  • Proof of will
  • Suspicious circumstances
  • Testamentary capacity
Read case analysis
Succession law

INDU BALA BOSE & ORS. versus MANINDRA CHANDRA BOSE & ANR.

The alleged suspicious circumstances do not amount to suspicion; they are satisfactorily explained or normal, and evidence supports the genuineness and valid execution of the will. The propounder discharged the onus, and probate is to be granted.

Source excerpt

  • Proof of will
  • Suspicious circumstances
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Attestation requirements
Read case analysis
Succession law

SURENDRA PAL & ORS. versus SARASWATI ARORA & ANR.

The will was found genuine and validly executed and attested by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind. The onus to prove undue influence, fraud or coercion lies on the challenger, and was not discharged. No presumption of undue influence arises from the mere fact of bequest to a second wife under prevailing social and legal norms in India. Suspicious circumstances, if any, were adequately explained.

Source excerpt

  • Wills
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Undue influence
  • Attestation of wills
Read case analysis
Succession law

GORANTLA THATAIAH versus THOTAKURA VENKATA SUBBAIAH & ORS.

The will was not executed by Veeriah in a sound and disposing state of mind; given the suspicious circumstances, including the propounder's prominent role and benefit under the will, the propounder failed to remove the court's suspicion. Therefore, the will is not legally valid.

Source excerpt

  • Validity of will
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Suspicious circumstances in execution of will
Read case analysis
Succession

H. VENKATACHALA IYENGAR versus B. N. THIMMAJAMMA & OTHERS

Where a will is executed amid suspicious circumstances (including prominent participation and substantial benefit to the propounder), the propounder must remove those suspicions by cogent and satisfactory evidence; mere proof of signature is not sufficient to prove the testator knew and approved the contents. On the evidence the propounder here failed to remove such suspicions, so the will was not proved.

Source excerpt

  • Proof of wills
  • Attestation under s.63 indian succession act
  • Suspicious circumstances and onus of proof
  • Testamentary capacity
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.