REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Shobhana Sahadev Shah, Occupation: Business, Age: Religion: Jain Of Bombay Indian Inhabitant Residing At C Appellant

V/S

Sangeeta Porbanderwala, A U.S. Citizen Of Indian Origin, Having Her Address At 162 Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BADRIPRASAD K AGARWAL V. PREMIER GARAGE [REFERRED TO]
BRAHAMDAT TEWARI V. CHAUDAN BIBI [REFERRED TO]
CHINUBHAI BHIKHABHAI V. BAI MANEKBAI [REFERRED TO]
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
H VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B N THIMMAJAMMA [REFERRED TO]
E V BALAKRISHNAN VS. MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM PIARI VS. BHAGWANT [REFERRED TO]
KASHIBAI VS. PARWATIBAI [REFERRED TO]
KOLI LAKHMANBHAI CHANABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JANKI NARAYAN BHOIR VS. NARAYAN NANDEO KADAM [REFERRED TO]
GURSWAROOP JOSHI VS. BEENA SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BENGA BEHERA VS. BRAJA KISHORE NANDA [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA VS. LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA VS. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA [REFERRED TO]
K LAXMANAN VS. KKAYIL PADMINI [REFERRED TO]
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT VS. PRAGNABEN JAMNADAS KATARIA [REFERRED TO]
YUMNAM ONGBI TAMPHA VS. YUMNAM JOYKUMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD VS. AGARWAL STEEL [REFERRED TO]
A E G CARAPIET VS. A Y DERDERIAN [REFERRED TO]
ITTOOP VARGHESE VS. POULOSE [REFERRED TO]
DEVISINGH S O BALARAMSINGH RAGHUWANSHI VS. SHAILABAI WD O RAJENDRASINGH RAGHUWANSHI [REFERRED TO]
JAIKARANDAS AGARWALLA VS. PROTAPSING AGARWALLA [REFERRED TO]
SIDDIK MAHOMED SHAH VS. MT SARAN [REFERRED TO]
M.B. RAMESH VS. K.M. VEERAJE [REFERRED TO]
HARISH LOYALKA VS. DILIP NEVATIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . <FRM>JUDGEMENT_113_LAWS(BOM)2_2017.htm</FRM>

(2.) The case turns on a single determinant: whether the attesting witnesses' evidence, taken as a whole, should be believed. If it is, and neither saw the testator sign the testamentary document but, at best, received only a telephonic confirmation, and neither signed as attesting witnesses within his eyesight, can such a Will be said to have been 'proved in its solemn form'?

(3.) On the question of due execution and attestation, a most unusual submission came from the Plaintiffs: they said the 1st Plaintiff's 'version' of execution and attestation should be preferred to that of the two attesting witnesses. In other words, the Plaintiffs accepted that these versions did not accord. They said the attesting witnesses' evidence - their own witnesses - should not be believed. This seems to me to have been an attempt to bring the case within Sec. 71 of the Evidence Act: where an attesting witness denies or does not recollect execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence. Neither Mr Makhija nor Dr Shetty denied execution and attestation at all. They only denied the presence of the testator. He was not present before them when he signed it, and he was not present when each of them, separately, attested it. The question is therefore not of an attesting witness's denial of execution, but whether, first, with this evidence from the attesting witnesses, the 1st Plaintiff's contrary evidence should receive any weightage, and, second, whether the evidence on record meets the requirements of Sec. 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHOBHANA SAHADEV SHAH, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, AGE: RELIGION: JAIN OF BOMBAY INDIAN INHABITANT RESIDING AT C Vs. SANGEETA PORBANDERWALA, A U.S. CITIZEN OF INDIAN ORIGIN, HAVING HER ADDRESS AT 162

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address