Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court said that this case is demonstrative of how S. 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 works against a woman.
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands who may predecease them is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime.”
The Court found no substantial evidence to exercise discretion in favor of Ramesh Sippy’s inheritance claim.
The Calcutta High Court noted that the amendment did not change the suit’s nature fundamentally and would not cause undue prejudice to the petitioner.
In the instant matter, the Calcutta High Court delivered its final judgment, clarifying the rights of Mr. H.V. Lodha in the operating companies, bringing an end to this complex and protracted legal saga.
Calcutta High Court affirmed the Executor’s authority in representing deceased’s estate and Shifted onus to the executor to establish suitability.
The principle governing the evidence in civil cases is that there should be a preponderance of the events which should be proved unlike in criminal matters, where the evidence have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the party which will suffer if such evidence is not proved.
The Will was executed by the testator, Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri in the presence of two attesting witnesses, thus, complying with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925.
Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.
The Delhi High Court held that naming of an administrator pendente lite would not come up unless and until the Executor was initially removed by the appropriate Court as per Section 301 of Succession Act, 1925. Further, it was held that an executor appointed in probate proceedings would not be readily removed unless gross misconduct, gross mismanagement, abuse, or misuse of probate was demonstrated.
Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J., while dismissing a second appeal held that in presence of prior execution
Delhi High Court: In a matter with regard to the grant of leave to defend, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, the tenant
Delhi High Court: Whether the third party can be absolved from contempt if they are informed that their conduct would violate the
Kerala High Court: In a matter, wherein a senior citizen has approached the Court with her grievance with respect to her son,
Jharkhand High Court: Expressing that the due execution of a Will is to be proved as per the provisions of law as
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J. dismissed an appeal that challenged an order given by the court of Civil Judge pertaining to
Gujarat High Court: A.P. Thaker, J. decided over a petition wherein the case of the petitioner was that the properties in question
Supreme Court: In a half a century old case relating to a Will, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh,
Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J., dealt with a petition wherein the case of the petitioner was that the respondent was