REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

D.MELLO Appellant

V/S

HENRY DMELLO Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MOTIBAI HORMUSJEE V. JAMSETJEE HORMUSJEE [REFERRED TO]
SARKAR BARNARD AND CO. V. ALAK MANJARY KUARI [REFERRED TO]
SMT. MAN KAUR V. GURNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AJMER SINGH V. TIRATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH V. BEHARI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
H. VENKATACHALA IYENGAR V. B. N. THIMMARAJAMMA [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA DATT SINGH VS. GANGOTRI DATT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RANI PURNIMA DEBI VS. KUMAR KHAGENDRA NARAYAN DEB [REFERRED TO]
M L ABDUL JABBAR SAHIB VS. M V VENKATA SASTRI AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PAL VS. SARASWATI ARORA [REFERRED TO]
SETH BENI CHAND SINCE DEAD NOW VS. KAMLA KUNWAR [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN KAUR VS. KARTAR KAUR [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH MUKHERJEE VS. PANCHANAN BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
N KAMALAN DEAD VS. AYYASAMY [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATAN MISRA VS. BITTAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
DHARMADAS MONDAL VS. KASHI NATH DE [REFERRED TO]
GANAPATS V GOINDASA VS. NINGAPPA RAMAPPA [REFERRED TO]
CHINNA NARASIMHALU VS. KURUBARA BASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA SAHU VS. BASANT KUMAR SAHU [REFERRED TO]
DORAISWAMI VS. RATHNAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH TUSHNIAL VS. RAJ KUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMMAL VS. CHINNATHAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the 1st defendant before the trial Court against whom the first respondent herein had filed original suit for grant of probate or in the alternative letters of administration in respect of a Will dated 16-3-1994. In brief the facts of the present case are as under :

(2.) ONE Lawerence DMello had four sons and four daughters. He was permanent resident of Haneesh Villa, Ambedkal, Nitte Village of Karkala Taluk. He died on 27-9-1994 leaving behind the suit schedule property and also other properties. Prior to his death when he was in sound disposing state of mind executed a Will on 16-3-1994 in respect of 24 cents of land consisting of a house in Sy. Nos. 629/1b, and 38 cents in sy. No. 721/7b situate at Nitte Village. Under the Will, the said properties were bequeathed to the plaintiff-Henry D Mello. The said document was also registered before the sub-Registrar, Karkala and the same was executed in the presence of witnesses. No executpr was appointed

(3.) THE appellant herein is the first defendant who contested the matter denying the very execution of the Will and so also registration of the Will. He alternatively contended even if such Will was executed it must have been obtained under misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence. The deceased had equal love and affection to wards all his children therefore he could not have disinherited some of his children favouring one son.

Click here to view full judgment.

ROBERT D MELLO Vs. HENRY D MELLO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address