Proof of Will – mere expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. – does not make the will invalid as the signature on the Will was admitted = A perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, and in particular that of PW-3 and PW-4, who are the attestors to Ex.A-5-Will and PW-5, the scribe of the Will, shows that nothing is elicited to discredit their testimony regarding the execution of the Will by Vasantha Devi. Except the suggestion consistently put to both the attestors and the scribe that the Will was fabricated using the signatures of Vasantha Devi, nothing of significance which would cast a shadow on the genuineness of the Will has been extracted from these witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses, in my opinion, completely satisfies the requirements of Section 63 of the 1925 Act. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 have expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. Last Testament - though unregistered, last will prevails the earlier registered will deed = Indeed, a perusal of Ex.A-5-Will would show that the testatrix referred to Will dated 11-3-1990 and rescinded the same. From the evidence of appellant No.1, who was examined as DW-1, it is clear that he had admitted the signature of the testatrix while denying the execution of Ex.A-5 Will. In the face of the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5, which remained unshaken, it needs to be held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are able to prove Ex.A-5-Will as true and valid. Even if PW-1 and PW-2 did not have personal knowledge of the manner in which Vasantha Devi executed the Will, the same would not in any manner affect its genuineness No Equities = When the sale deeds are hit by Doctrine of Lis Pendency, cannot claim any Equities=, but he has also sold Ac.5-00 of land which was bequeathed to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.A-5-Will to defendant Nos.8 and 9. It is also not in dispute that these properties were sold after the suit was instituted. In these facts and circumstances, defendant Nos.8 and 9 cannot claim any equities against respondent Nos.1 and 2. At the most, they can proceed against appellant No.1 for recovery of the money paid to him and also for damages, if any. - 2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

Proof of Will – mere expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. – does not make the will invalid as the signature on the Will was admitted = A perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, and in particular that of PW-3 and PW-4, who are the attestors to Ex.A-5-Will and PW-5, the scribe of the Will, shows that nothing is elicited to discredit their testimony regarding the execution of the Will by Vasantha Devi.  Except the suggestion consistently put to both the attestors and the scribe that the Will was fabricated using the    signatures of Vasantha Devi, nothing of significance which would cast a shadow on the genuineness of the Will has been extracted from these witnesses.  The evidence of these witnesses, in my opinion, completely satisfies the requirements of Section 63 of the 1925 Act. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 have expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance.                 Last Testament - though unregistered, last will prevails the earlier registered will deed = Indeed, a perusal of Ex.A-5-Will would show that the testatrix referred to Will dated 11-3-1990 and rescinded the same.  From the evidence of appellant No.1, who was examined as  DW-1, it is clear that he had admitted the signature of the testatrix while denying the execution of Ex.A-5 Will.  In the face of the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5, which remained unshaken, it needs to be held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are able to prove Ex.A-5-Will as true and valid.  Even if PW-1 and PW-2 did not have personal knowledge of the manner in which Vasantha Devi executed the Will, the same would not in any manner affect its genuineness   No Equities = When the sale deeds are hit by Doctrine of Lis Pendency, cannot claim any Equities=, but he has also sold Ac.5-00 of land which was bequeathed to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.A-5-Will to defendant Nos.8 and 9.  It is also not in dispute that these properties were sold after the suit was instituted.  In these facts and circumstances, defendant Nos.8 and 9 cannot claim any equities against respondent Nos.1 and 2.  At the most, they can proceed against appellant No.1 for recovery of the money paid to him and also for damages, if any. - 2015 A.P. 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.