LEELA RAJAGOPAL Vs. KAMALA MENON COCHARAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
September 08,2014
Leela Rajagopal
Appellant
VERSUS
Kamala Menon Cocharan
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
H VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B N THIMMAJAMMA [REFERRED TO]RANI PURNIMA DEBI VS. KUMAR KHAGENDRA NARAYAN DEB [REFERRED TO]
PENTAKOTA SATYANARAYANA VS. PENTAKOTA SEETHARATNAM [REFERRED TO]
APOLINE DSOUZA VS. JOHN DSOUZA [REFERRED TO]
BHARPUR SINGH VS. SHAMSHER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR (DEAD) BY L RS VS. VINOD KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
VED MITRA VERMA VS. DHARAM DEO VERMA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MOYNA BHATTACHARJEE VS. ASHIM KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-60] [REFERRED TO]SANJAY KALRA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ KATYAL AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA KANWAR VS. PAMELA MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
HARJEET KAUR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
MADANKUWAR AND ORS. VS. SUSHILA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA DEVI VS. MANJU SHUKLA [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR KHANDELWAL VS. AMAR NATH KHANDELWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
M. SHOBHA VS. M. DINESH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-262] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS VS. JANKI [LAWS(MPH)-2024-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRANATI GHOSH VS. ANIL KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
D. K. LALCHHANHIMA VS. R. CHHIARKUNGI [LAWS(GAU)-2023-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV RAJ AHUJA VS. STATE, N.C.T OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
ALEX PINTO VS. FLORINE MORAS [LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
P. SIVANANDAN AND ORS. VS. HARSHALATHA P. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
LOKNATH BHOWMIK VS. MANI GOPAL ROY BARMAN [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. KHEM CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. JAG MOHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-172] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. MADANKUWAR WD/O REKHCHANDJI PARAKH VS. SMT. SUSHILA W/O GYANCHAND KATARIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
MOUSUMI ROY CHOWDHURY VS. KANAN SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2023-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJRAM PATEL VS. RATNA BAI PATEL [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
N.RENUKA DEVI VS. E.LALITHA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR MITRA VS. DIBYENDRA NATH BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
DINKAR CHIMANLAL CHINAI VS. MADHUKAR CHIMANLAL CHINAI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-294] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHAL & ANR VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI KHASNABISH VS. ARINDAM KHASNABISH AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
MURTHY VS. C. SARADAMBAL [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. NARENDRA KAUR [LAWS(MPH)-2024-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
PREMAKUMARI R. VS. O.K.SIVASANKARA PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-2024-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN KUMAR KOTHARI VS. DIPTI BAVISHI [LAWS(CAL)-2020-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. SATYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2021-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH VS. KALAWATI DEVI [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH POPLI VS. RAJ KUMARI BATRA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-257] [REFERRED TO]
DHANPAT VS. SHEO RAM (DECEASED) [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)All the three appeals being directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court dated 18.08.2009 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this order.
(2.)In the present appeals, which challenge a judgment of reversal passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, determination of what is essentially a question of fact confronts this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The said question is with regard to the validity and legality of a Will dated 11.1.1982 executed by one K.P. Janaki Amma, the mother of the appellants and the first respondent. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 23.01.2001 dismissed the probate proceedings instituted by the first respondent (later converted into a Suit being T.O.S. No. 16 of 1994) by holding that the execution of the Will dated 11.1.1982 is surrounded by a host of suspicious circumstances rendering the same legally unacceptable. The aforesaid view of the learned Trial Judge of the High Court having been overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court by impugned order dated 18.08.2009, the present appeals have been filed.
(3.)We have heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsels as well as Mr. T. Harish Kumar learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
(2.)In the present appeals, which challenge a judgment of reversal passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, determination of what is essentially a question of fact confronts this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The said question is with regard to the validity and legality of a Will dated 11.1.1982 executed by one K.P. Janaki Amma, the mother of the appellants and the first respondent. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 23.01.2001 dismissed the probate proceedings instituted by the first respondent (later converted into a Suit being T.O.S. No. 16 of 1994) by holding that the execution of the Will dated 11.1.1982 is surrounded by a host of suspicious circumstances rendering the same legally unacceptable. The aforesaid view of the learned Trial Judge of the High Court having been overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court by impugned order dated 18.08.2009, the present appeals have been filed.
(3.)We have heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsels as well as Mr. T. Harish Kumar learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.