Proof of Will when arose - If a dispute was raised as to the execution and genuineness of a Will, then a question may arise whether the opposite party, who propounded the Will, has proved the same in accordance with law or not. But in the absence of any plea as to casting of any doubt or shadow as to the execution and genuineness of the Will, still would it be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove the said document. The contention of the plaintiff is that there is no obligation to adduce evidence to prove such document, whose execution and genuineness was not disputed - 2015 A.P.(2006) MSKLAWREPORTS


 Coming to the second issue as to the non-adducing of evidence by the plaintiff to prove Ex.A.6 Will, a perusal of the pleadings clearly shows that no doubt was cast either on execution or genuineness of the Will. What was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement was that the suit schedule property was the Stridhana property of first defendant's mother, therefore, the first defendant succeeds to the same with absolute rights, and hence, the sale deed executed by her in favour of the second defendant is valid. Now having lost in their attempt to claim that it is the Stridhana property of the first defendant's mother, the defendants have now turned round to attack the Will executed by Bomma Suryanarayana under Ex.A.6. Though the learned Counsel relied upon various other decisions where certain observations were made that a legal issue can be raised even at a later stage of the proceedings, but here it is not a pure legal issue. If a dispute was raised as to the execution and genuineness of a Will, then a question may arise whether the opposite party, who propounded the Will, has proved the same in accordance with law or not. But in the absence of any plea as to casting of any doubt or shadow as to the execution and genuineness of the Will, still would it be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove the said document. The contention of the plaintiff is that there is no obligation to adduce evidence to prove such document, whose execution and genuineness was not disputed.- 2015 A.P.(2006) MSKLAWREPORTS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.