TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Will validity, grants Letters of Administration</h1> <h3>Janaki Devi Versus. R. Vasanthi and Ors.</h3> Janaki Devi Versus. R. Vasanthi and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Will dated 4.7.1974 is genuine, true, and validRs.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to Letters of AdministrationRs.3. To what relief the petitioner is entitledRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Will dated 4.7.1974 is genuine, true, and validRs.The plaintiff/first respondent claimed that Lakshmi Bai executed the Will on 4.7.1974, which was attested by two witnesses who are now deceased. The appellant branded the Will as a forgery, arguing that the plaintiff is not related to Lakshmi Bai and that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The court considered the evidence, including the admissions made by the appellant in other proceedings, which acknowledged the execution of the Will by Lakshmi Bai. The court noted that the Will was registered, and the thumb impression of Lakshmi Bai matched the one in the Registrar's office, as confirmed by a fingerprint expert. The court concluded that the execution of the Will was proved as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to Letters of AdministrationRs.The court held that the plaintiff/first respondent had sufficiently proved the execution of the Will despite the death of the attesting witnesses. The plaintiff's evidence, combined with the admissions by the appellant and other respondents in connected proceedings, established that the Will was genuine. The court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the delay in filing for probate, noting that the plaintiff had taken steps to preserve the property and had explained the delay due to her and her husband's health issues. The court found that the delay did not cast doubt on the genuineness of the Will.3. To what relief the petitioner is entitledRs.The court affirmed the grant of letters of administration in favor of the plaintiff/first respondent, as the execution of the Will was duly proved. The court noted that any issues regarding Lakshmi Bai's right to execute the Will or the plaintiff's relationship with Lakshmi Bai were beyond the scope of this suit and should be addressed in appropriate forums. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the Single Judge, and directed the parties to bear their respective costs.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Will dated 4.7.1974 was genuine, true, and valid, and that the plaintiff/first respondent was entitled to letters of administration. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Single Judge was confirmed.
TaxTMI 