Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Probate Application Dismissed Over Will Concerns, Supreme Court Upholds Decision</h1> The Madras High Court Division Bench dismissed the probate application due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including the testatrix's ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity and genuineness of the Will.2. Allegations of coercion and undue influence.3. Non-disclosure of interested parties in the probate application.4. Physical and mental state of the testatrix.5. Execution and attestation of the Will.6. Exclusion of other legal heirs from the Will.7. Discrepancies in the testatrix's signatures.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Genuineness of the Will:The respondent questioned the validity and genuineness of the Will executed by Mrs. Solomon Lazarus, citing her deteriorated physical and mental condition from 1970 onwards. The Division Bench found several suspicious circumstances, including the advanced age of the testatrix (83 years) and her physical infirmities due to multiple falls and surgeries. The Will was drafted by an advocate, but neither the advocate nor the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will was examined as witnesses, raising doubts about whether the Will was read and explained to the testatrix. Additionally, the testatrix's signatures on the Will were inconsistent with her usual signature, further casting doubt on the Will's authenticity.2. Allegations of Coercion and Undue Influence:The respondent alleged that the Will was executed under duress and coercion by the appellant and other family members residing with the testatrix. The learned Single Judge initially found no evidence of coercion or undue influence. However, the Division Bench noted the appellant's significant influence over the testatrix due to her dependence on him after her falls and surgeries, suggesting that the appellant may have taken advantage of her vulnerable state to influence the Will's execution.3. Non-disclosure of Interested Parties in the Probate Application:The initial probate application by Joseph Antony Lazarus did not disclose the names of other interested parties, leading to the revocation of the probate granted to him. The respondent, Mrs. A.J. Francis, was not made a party to the proceedings despite being a daughter of the testatrix, which led to the revocation of the probate and re-numbering of the application to consider the Will's validity.4. Physical and Mental State of the Testatrix:The Division Bench emphasized the testatrix's advanced age and physical infirmities, including two falls resulting in broken thigh bones and subsequent surgeries. Despite the appellant's claim that she was mentally alert, the Division Bench found the testatrix's physical condition and dependence on the appellant significant in questioning the Will's genuineness.5. Execution and Attestation of the Will:The learned Single Judge initially found that the Will was properly executed and attested, with no suspicious circumstances. However, the Division Bench highlighted the absence of key witnesses, such as the advocate who drafted the Will and the Sub-Registrar who registered it, which could have provided conclusive evidence of the Will's execution and attestation.6. Exclusion of Other Legal Heirs from the Will:The Division Bench noted the exclusion of two sons from the Will without any explanation, despite the testatrix mentioning the contributions of the appellant and Cecil Lazarus. This exclusion raised further suspicion about the Will's authenticity and the fairness of its provisions.7. Discrepancies in the Testatrix's Signatures:The Division Bench found discrepancies in the testatrix's signatures on the Will, noting that she signed as Mrs. M. Solomon Lazarus on the Will, whereas she usually signed as Mrs. Solomon Lazarus. This inconsistency, along with the presence of two different signatures on each page of the Will, contributed to the doubt regarding the Will's genuineness.Conclusion:The Division Bench of the Madras High Court reversed the learned Single Judge's findings, dismissing the appellant's application for grant of probate due to the cumulative effect of suspicious circumstances, including the testatrix's physical and mental state, the exclusion of other heirs, discrepancies in signatures, and the absence of key witnesses. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the revocation of the probate.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found