Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the alleged will was proved to have been duly executed by or on behalf of the testatrix.
Analysis: The attesting and supporting evidence was scrutinised with caution because the propounder bore the burden of proving execution. The testimony of the principal witness was not accepted by the trial court, and there were material circumstances casting doubt on the alleged execution, including the absence of reliable corroboration from available witnesses, the failure to call important attesting witnesses, and other suspicious circumstances surrounding the document and its production. The provision permitting cross-examination of a witness by the party calling him was noted in the context of the hostile witness issue, but the decisive question remained whether execution had in fact been established. On the whole record, the trial judge's appreciation of credibility was held not to warrant disturbance.
Conclusion: The alleged will was not proved, and the propounder failed to discharge the burden of establishing its due execution.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court decrees were set aside, and the District Judge's decrees were restored.
Ratio Decidendi: In a will case, the propounder must affirmatively prove due execution, and where the evidence of execution is not trustworthy and surrounding circumstances create suspicion, the will cannot be accepted as proved.