Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J. dismissed an appeal that challenged an order given by the court of Civil Judge pertaining to
Gujarat High Court: A.P. Thaker, J. decided over a petition wherein the case of the petitioner was that the properties in question
Supreme Court: In a half a century old case relating to a Will, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh,
Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J., dealt with a petition wherein the case of the petitioner was that the respondent was
Bombay High Court: G.S. Kulkarni, J., addressed an ordeal of a senior citizen who would be soon in her nineties and was
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., explained the concept of proving a Will by an attesting witness. The chamber appeal was preferred
“A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience.”
Supreme Court of India: Observing the well-settled position of law that, Mutation Entry does not confer any right, title or interest in
Supreme Court: Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., expressed that, Key characteristic of thumb impression is that every person
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decides a matter revolving around the Will of a deceased person. Factual Background Instant suit was
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such
Delhi High Court: Rajiv Sahai EndLaw, J., while addressing a very significant issue revolving around ‘Will’ expressed that: Litigation in a Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., disposed of a writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., has set aside the order of High
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma J., upheld the impugned judgment on merits. The facts of the case are such that the
Supreme Court: Explaining the requirement under Section 69 of the Evidence Act pertinent to Section 68 of the Evidence Act that the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that an agriculturist cannot part with
40 Lakh persons of 1731 Unauthorised Colonies to be benefited
Himachal Pradesh High Court: The instant writ is before the bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. filed by the appellant who was
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J. examined the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised by the Probate Court, and allowed an appeal