Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Presumption as to documents thirty years old does not apply to wills," : Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: March 14, 2023

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of a will despite the absence of attesting witnesses. The bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli, stated that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which applies to documents thirty years old, does not extend to the proof of wills. The court emphasized that wills must be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Referring to a previous judgment, the court declared, "A presumption regarding documents 30 years old does not apply to a will."

The case involved a dispute over the execution and validity of a will, wherein the appellant contested the grant of letters of administration based on suspicious circumstances and an alleged delay in seeking relief. The respondents, however, successfully proved the will's authenticity by presenting the testimonies of witnesses who were present during its execution. Additionally, the court considered a registered partition deed that distributed shares as per the terms of the will and an acknowledgment of the will by the appellant's predecessor.

By clarifying the applicability of Section 90 and emphasizing the importance of proper execution and attestation of wills, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the legal requirements for proving wills. This judgment highlights the significance of alternative means, such as Sections 69 and 71 of the Evidence Act, when attesting witnesses are unavailable. The court's decision ensures the protection of testators' testamentary intentions even in the absence of traditional proof through attesting witnesses.

The judgment reaffirms the position that the validity of wills should be established based on the specific legal provisions governing wills rather than relying solely on the age of the document.

Date of Judgment: March 14, 2023

ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. vs  RANJAN BALA DASI & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/14-Mar-2023-ASHUTOSH-vs-Ranjan.pdf"]                                             

Latest Legal News