VED MITRA VERMA Vs. DHARAM DEO VERMA
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 31,2014

VED MITRA VERMA Appellant
VERSUS
Dharam Deo Verma Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

N.RENUKA DEVI VS. E.LALITHA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
LEELA RAJAGOPAL VS. KAMALA MENON COCHARAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
HARPHOOL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. & OTHERS VS. RAM PAL & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
DHANPAT VS. SHEO RAM (DECEASED) [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. SATYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2021-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
PRANATI GHOSH VS. ANIL KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
KARAMJIT KAUR VS. MEHAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
AKKINIRAJAN VS. MAHESWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-203] [REFERRED TO]
D. K. LALCHHANHIMA VS. R. CHHIARKUNGI [LAWS(GAU)-2023-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIK SINGH VS. CHARAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2023-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRI DEVI AND ANOTHER VS. DROMPTI DEVI (DECEASED) [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
SETH PAL @SHETH PAL AND OTHERS VS. ISHRO DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-277] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR KHANDELWAL VS. AMAR NATH KHANDELWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA KANWAR VS. PAMELA MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
MOTURU NALINI KANTH VS. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2023-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
JATIN ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. HARISH ISHWARBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-140] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH @ JAWALA DASS VS. FAQUIR SINGH (NOW DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LRS AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-287] [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. PAL SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-2-414] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Aggrieved by the judgment and order of reversal passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, Shillong Bench, this appeal has been filed. The Respondent-Dharam Deo Verma had filed an application in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner at Shillong Under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short "the Act") for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a Will dated 20th November, 1974, claimed to have been executed by his father late Satyanand Verma. The learned trial Court rejected the application holding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will to be suspicious. In Appeal, the High Court reversed the said verdict by an elaborate judgment.
(2.)The correctness of the view taken by the High Court has been sought to be assailed by contending that the reversal of the verdict of the learned trial Court overlooks a series of suspicious circumstances which, it is contended, ought to have been taken into account to hold that execution of the Will by the Testator in favour of the present Respondent has not been proved.
(3.)The suspicious circumstances, according to the Appellant, may be enumerated in seriatim herein under:
(i) That the Will dated 20th November, 1974 excludes all other children of the Testator to the exception of the beneficiary thereof i.e. the Respondent herein. No basis therefor is disclosed.

(ii) In the will, the name of the daughter Vidyalakshmi Devi having been wrongly mentioned as Piplakshmi Devi. This is a glaring fact which raises serious doubts as regards the authenticity of the Will.

(iii) That the Testator Satyanand Verma, was at the relevant point of time, suffering from ill-health which incapacitated him from executing the Will;

(iv) That the application before the learned trial Court under the provisions of the Act was filed after nearly 17 years of the execution of the Will; and lastly

(v) That the attesting witnesses have passed away in the meantime. The execution of the Will centers round the evidence of Shri Krishan Murari, Sub-Registrar, Jansath, Muzaffarnagar District (U.P.), PW-3, who had deposed on commission after nearly two decades of the execution of the Will throwing serious doubts on the credibility of the evidence tendered.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.