Taken from: How to Prove a Will, in Court? Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Abstract
•➧ There is difference of opinion. Three views are possible. • First: Call at lest one witness, in spite of express admission. • Second: No need, even when admitted impliedly. • Third: No need if the Will is expressly or categorically admitted. •➧ The proposition of law in the third view above sounds good. •➧ Two arguments on admitted facts need not be proved – • First, general provisions of Sect. 58 of the Evidence Act has ‘to give way to the special provisions’ of Sec. 68; and Sec. 68 places an emphatic ‘non-obstante clause’ – “it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution”. • Second, it will also be a forceful argument if one says that a section in the Evidence Act cannot be protected from certain fundamental principles of the Evidence Act which include ‘best evidence rule’, ‘admitted facts need not be proved’ etc., unless strong persuasive indications are laid down in the provision concerned. (It is also noteworthy that Sec. 68 does not proceed with a non-obstante clause.) • The scheme of the Evidence Act shows that Chapter III (the beginning Chapter of Part II) which deals with “Facts Need Not be Proved”, is meant to govern the succeeding chapters including the Chapter V that deals with ‘Documentary Evidence’ wherein Sec. 68 is included. • It is also significant – Sec. 58 says that ‘Admitted facts need not be proved’; and Sec. 68 speaks as to “Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested” and that the attesting witness is called “for the purpose of proving its execution”. •➧ That is, the question of ‘proof’ under Sec. 68 does not arise if ‘execution of document’ has already been admitted by the other side. •➧ Therefore, an authoritative judicial pronouncement is yet to be arrived, taking note of various potential contentions in this regard. |
Introspection
Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 mandates examination of one attesting witness at least to prove documents required by law to be attested (including Wills). When execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the opposite side, should it be ‘Proved’?
There is difference of opinion.
Following latest decisions assuredly lay down that when execution of the will is ‘admitted’ by the opposite side, it need not be ‘proved’ as required in Sec. 68 (by examining at least one witness).
- Boomathi v. Murugesan, 2023-2 Mad LJ 684 (DB)
- P. Radha v. Irudayadoss, 2022 SCCOnline Mad 886
- Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg, 2022-1 All LJ 435.
Following decisions laid down that even when execution of a will was ‘admitted’ by the opposite side, it must have been ‘proved’ by examining at least one attesting witness.
- S.R. Srinivas v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 – It is observed – the execution of a Will can be held to have been proved only when the statutory requirements for proving the Will are satisfied. Admission in the pleadings as to the Will can only be about the “making of the Will” and not the “genuineness of the Will”.
- Vadakkayil Gopalan v. Vadakkayil Paru, (2013) 3 KerLT 69 – It is observed – proof of the Will by examining at least one witness was necessary (even if the Will has been admitted in the pleadings).
- Poulose A. V. v. Indira M.R., 2010 (3) KerLT Suppl. 185 : ILR 2010 Ker.388 – It is observed – No distinction is drawn, by Sec. 68, between an admitted Will and a disputed Will in the mode of proof of execution; and therefore, in all cases in which the Will is set up the procedure prescribed in Sec. 68 will have to be followed.
- Ramesh Verma v. Lajesh Saxena (2017) 1 SCC 257 – It is observed – the mandate of Section 68 of the Evidence Act has to be followed even in a case where the opposite party does not specifically deny the execution of the document in the written statement.
- Sarada v. Radhamani, 2017 (2) KLT 327. In this decision, rendered in a ‘Refence’ to resolve the dispute in the question we discuss, the Kerala High Court (DB) referred all the above decisions. And, declared the following decisions, as Per Incuriam
- Princelal G. v. Prasannakumari, 2009 (3) KerLT Suppl. 1342: ILR 2009 (3) Ker. 221 – It is observed – where the execution of the Will is expressly admitted, neither Section 68 nor its proviso is attracted obliging the propounder of the Will to prove due execution of the Will (for, admitted facts need not be proved: Sec. 58 of the Evidence Act).
- Thayyullathil Kunhikannan v. Thayyullathil Kalliani, AIR 1990 Ker.226 – Relying on Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C. and Sec. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is held that when the execution of the Will is admitted, there will not be any requirement to prove the Will.
- P. Malliga v. P. Kumaran, 2022 (2) LW 393, (Followed in Ranga Pillai v. Mannar Pillai, 2022, Mad) – It is held by the Madras High Court that a Will shall not be used as evidence until it is proved in the manner prescribed under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The judge did not agree the view in P. Radha v. Irudayadoss, 2022 SCCOnline Mad 886. (Note: This decision, P. Malliga v. P. Kumaran, is overruled in Boomathi v. Murugesan, 2023-2 Mad LJ 684, DB)
S. 68 to be Followed, Even When the Opp. party does not Deny Execution
Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
- “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:
- Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
In Ramesh Verma v. Rajesh Saxena, 2017-1 SCC 257, our Apex Court held as under:
- “13. A will like any other document is to be proved in terms of the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act and the Succession Act, 1925. The propounder of the will is called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature to the document on his own free will and the document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. This is the mandate of Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act and the position remains the same even in a case where the opposite party does not specifically deny the execution of the document in the written statement.”
Contra View: If ‘Admission’ (by the other side), Need not Prove the Will
It may be pointed out that the Apex Court did not consider in this decision, Ramesh Verma v. Rajesh Saxena – what is the position when the opposite party expressly admit the execution of the document.
Boomathi v. Murugesan, 2023-2 Mad LJ 684 (DB)
It is held in a recent Division Bench decision in Boomathi v. Murugesan, 2023-2 Mad LJ 684, that the position will be different if the Will is ‘categorically’ and ‘clearly’ admitted. The Madras High Court referred Sec. 17 (Admission) and Sec. 58 (Facts admitted need not be proved) and came to the conclusion , Sec. 68 will not be attracted where the Will is “admitted” by the other side. The Division Bench held as under:
- “23. First and foremost, it is to be borne in mind that before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. Narain Singh Saini [Dead] through Legal Representatives and Others, reported in 2015 [8] SCC 615, the validity of the Will was a core issue and the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to discuss the law with regard to proof of a Will in accordance with the statute. In such context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the position with regard to proof of a Will remains the same even if the opposite party does not specifically deny execution of the same.
- 24. The above judgment has been followed by learned Single Judges of this Court in P. Malliga Vs. P. Kumaran reported in 2022 [2] LW 393 and Akkinirajan Vs. Maheswari and Others reported in 2023 [1] LW 72.
- 25. This Court draws the distinction between ‘specifically denied’, ‘not specifically denied’ and ‘admitted‘. The first two instances, namely, ‘specifically denied’ and ‘not specifically denied’, would fall within one category. Insofar as proof of a Will in both cases in this category, the Will would have to be necessarily proved by the propounder. However, where the opposite party categorically admits to the Will, the position would be certainly different. In India, we follow what is called the system ‘adversarial proceedings’, which is also followed in the British Courts. The foundation of this School is that parties before a Court would have to deal with facts in issue namely facts that are asserted and denied by the parties to the lis and the Court would proceed to adjudicate on such issues. When there is no dispute between the parties on certain matters, the Court would not venture to require proof of such admitted facts.”
- “33. This Court has applied its mind to the various principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and other High Courts, especially in the context of Sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, proof of a Will where execution is not specifically denied and in cases where the execution is categorically admitted. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Verma’s case [cited supra] reported in 2017 [1] SCC 257, cannot be a precedent for the proposition where the opposite party clearly admits to the execution of the subject Will as in the instant case. Therefore, we are not in respectful agreement with the judgments in P. Malliga’s case (P. Malliga v. P. Kumaran, 2022 (2) LW 393) and Akkinirajan’s case (Akkinirajan Vs. Maheswari, 2023 [1] LW 72) following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chand Sharma’s case. On the contrary, we approve the ratio laid down in P. Radha Vs. Irudayadoss and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 886 and Vanjiammal and Others Vs. Vidya and Others in the order dtd. 21/4/2017 made in CRP.[PD] No.3659/2013.”
The same view is taken in Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg, 2022-1 All LJ 435. The court held as under:
- “The admission were in the pleadings of the parties and therefore there was no requirement of proving the will in the present suit. Admittedly, the defendant Nos. 2 to 4/appellants have claimed their title through Ramesh Chand Garg who never disputed the validity of the will rather in the Original Suit No. 458 of 1992, he admitted its validity and therefore, the lower appellate court has rightly decreed the suit and held that the will was neither required to be proved in the present suit nor the filing of original will was necessary.”
Do General Provisions of S. 58 give way to Special Provisions of S. 68
Three views are possible:
- First: Requirement of calling at lest one witness to prove those documents that requires attestation, in spite of express admission from the opposite party as to the execution of the document in the written statement.
- Second: If the Will is (even impliedly) admitted, Sec. 68 need not be invoked.
- Third: If only the Will is expressly or categorically admitted, then only there will be alleviation of burden laid down in Sec. 68.
In the light of the Apex Court decision in Ramesh Verma v. Rajesh Saxena, 2017-1 SCC 257, (that the position – as to proof of documents requires attestation – remains the same even in a case where the opposite party does not specifically deny the execution of the document in the written statement) it appears that the second view stated above (taken in Thayyullathil Kunhikannan v. Thayyullathil Kalliani, AIR 1990 Ker 226) is not sustainable.
But, the proposition of law in the third view above, applied in Boomathi v. Murugesan (supra), and other decisions (that the position – as to proof of documents requires attestation – will be different if the Will is “categorically admitted“), sounds good.
Authoritative Judicial Pronouncement is yet to be Arrived
It is also pertinent to note that the Kerala High Court, in Sarada v. Radhamani (supra), pointed out that the general provisions of Sect. 58 of the Evidence Act has ‘to give way to the special provisions’ of Sec. 68 of the Act; and it was remarked that there was no distinction between an ‘admitted Will’ and a ‘disputed Will’ as to the mode of proof.
It appears that the placing the doctrine of ‘specific provisions override general provisions‘ is rational; for, the following words in Sec. 68 places a ‘non-obstante clause’ –
- “it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution”.
However, it will also be a forceful argument if one says that a section in the Evidence Act cannot be protected from certain fundamental principles of the Evidence Act which include ‘best evidence rule’, ‘admitted facts need not be proved’ etc., unless strong persuasive indications are laid down in the provision concerned. (It is also noteworthy that Sec. 68 does not proceed with a non-obstante clause.) In any event, the scheme of the Evidence Act shows that Chapter III (the beginning Chapter of Part II) which deals with “Facts Need Not be Proved”, is meant to govern the succeeding chapters including the Chapter V that deals with ‘Documentary Evidence’ wherein Sec. 68 is included.
It is also significant – Sec. 58 says that ‘Admitted facts need not be proved’; and Sec. 68 speaks as to “Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested” and that the attesting witness is called “for the purpose of proving its execution”. That is, the question of ‘proof’ under Sec. 68 does not arise if ‘execution of document’ has already been admitted by the other side.
- Note: Proviso to Sec. 58 enables the court to require proof, despite the admission of the other side, if it finds proper. Proviso to Sec. 58 reads as under:
- “Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.”
Therefore, an authoritative judicial pronouncement is yet to be arrived, taking note of various potential contentions in this regard.
Conclusion
Following documents are required by law to be attested by attesting witnesses.
- Will: Sec. 63 of the Succession Act.
- Mortgage deed: Sec. 59 of the T P Act.
- Gift deed: Sec. 123 of the T P Act.
- Bond: Sec. 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 mandates examination of one attesting witness at least to prove the aforesaid four documents required by law to be attested. The proviso to Sec. 68 lays down the following: if the aforesaid documents, EXCEPT WILL, are (i) registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and (ii) not specifically denied by the person who executed it, execution of those documents need not necessarily be proved by calling ‘an attesting witness’. That is, for the purpose of proving the Will (alone), the examination of ‘an attesting witness’ is necessary. It is difficult to support the logic and grounds for picking out Will (in Sec. 68 Evidence Act), from other (three) documents that are required by law to be attested by attesting witnesses.
But, note – the Will stands picked out (in Sec. 68 Evidence Act) from other (three) documents that are required by law to be attested by attesting witnesses.
Read also:
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will.
How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLiveFree’? Click here – “How to Subscribe Free“
Read in this Cluster (Click on the topic):
Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code
- Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
- Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
- Declaration and Injunction
- Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
- Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
- Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
- Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
- Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
- Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
- What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
- ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
- Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
- Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
- Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
- Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
Power of attorney
- No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
- Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
- If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
- Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.
Title, ownership and Possession
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
- Title and Ownership in Indian Law
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
- 22nd Law Commission Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
- Grant in Law
Adverse Possession
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
Principles and Procedure
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- Declaration and Injunction
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
- Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
- Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
- Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
Admission, Relevancy and Proof
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Proof and Truth of Documents
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act
- Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
- Vested interest and Contingent Interest
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
- Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
- Grant in Law
Evidence Act – General
- Evidence in Court – General Principles
- Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
- How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
Sec. 65B
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
- Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
- ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Certificate forms
- Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
- How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?
Law on Documents
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Proof and Truth of Documents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
Interpretation
- Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Wills
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court
Contract Act
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
Law on Damages
- Law on Damages
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
Easement
- Easement Simplified
- What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
- What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
- Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
- Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
- Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
- “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
- Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
- Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
- Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
- ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
- Grant in Law
Stamp Act & Registration
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
- Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
Will
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
- When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
Arbitration
- N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
- What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
- Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
- No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?
Divorce
- Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
- Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
- Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile
Negotiable Instruments Act
- “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
- Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
- Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues
- Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
- Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
- Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
- Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
- Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
- Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
- Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur Vs. Union of India)
- Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
- Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head
Religious issues
- Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
- ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
- No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
- Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
- Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
- Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
- SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
- Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict
Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India
- General
- Property & Trust
- Juristic Personality
- Suits
- Amendment and Dissolution
- Rights and Management
- Election
- State Actions
Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India
- General Principles
- Dedication and Vesting
- Trustees and Management
- Breach of Trust
- Suits by or against Trusts
- Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
- Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Constitutional Principles
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General