TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER: RAJA RANI SEHGAL VS PURUSHOTTAAM

LAL & OTHERS 1992.

By

Name of the Student:

VENKATA SAI RAGHAVA NAIDU PALLI

Roll No.:
18LLB094

Semester:
IV SEMESTER

Name of the Program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B. / LL.M.)

5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of the Faculty Member

Dr. P. Vara Lakshmi ma’am, B.A(Hons.) LLB, P.G.DCL and IPR, M.L., Ph.D.
Associate Professor

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Kinds of Wills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Who Can Make A Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Wording of The Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Execution of a Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. Invalid Wills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. CASE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2.2. WILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. APPELLANT CONTENTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
2.3.1. APPELLANT ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
2.5. REASONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. JUDGE’S VIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.7. JUDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. CASES MENTIONED IN THE JUDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

2
 INTRODUCTION

A Will can be made at any time in the life of a person. A Will can be changed a number of
times and there are no legal restrictions as to the number of times it can be changed. It can be
withdrawn at anytime during the lifetime of the person making the Will. A Will has to be
attested by two or more witnesses, each of who should have seen the testator signing the Will.
The essential features are:
1. Legal declaration: The documents purporting to be a Will or a testament must be legal, i.e.
in conformity with the law and must be executed by a person legally competent to make it.
Further the declaration of intention must be with respect to the testator’s property It is a legal
document, which has a binding force upon the family.

2. Disposition of property: In a Will, the testator bequeaths or leaves his property to the
person or people he chooses to leave his assets/belongings. A Hindu person by way of his
Will can bequeath all his property. However, a member of an undivided family cannot
bequeath his coparcenery interest in the family property

3. Takes effect after death: The Will is enforceable only after the death of the testator
Under section 18 of the Registration Act the registration of a Will is not compulsory. Also,
the SC in Narain Singh v. Kamla Devi has held that mere non-registration of the Will an
inference cannot be drawn against the genuines of the Will. However it is advisable to
register it as it provides strong legal evidence about the validity of the Will. Once a Will is
registered, it is placed in the safe custody of the Registrar and therefore cannot be tampered
with, destroyed, mutilated or stolen. It is to be released only to the testator himself or, after
his death, to an authorized person who produces the Death Certificate
Since a testamentary disposition always speaks from the grave of the testator, the required
standard of proof is very high. The initial burden of proof is always on the person who
propounds the Will.

Kinds of Wills
Conditional Wills: A Will maybe made to take effect on happening of a condition. In
Rajeshwar v. Sukhdeo the operation of the Will was postponed till after the death of the
testator’s wife. However if it is ambiguous whether the testator intended to make a Will

3
conditional, the language of the documents as well as the circumstances are to be taken into
consideration.
Joint Wills: Two or more persons can make a joint Will. If the joint Will is joint and is
intended to take effect after the death of both, it will not be admitted to probate during the life
time of either and are revocable at any time by either during the joint lives or after the death
of the survivor.

Mutual Wills: Two or more persons may agree to make mutual Wills i.e. to confer on each
other reciprocal benefits. In mutual Wills the testators confer benefit on each other but if the
legatees and testators are distinct, it is not a mutual Will. Mutual Wills are also known as
reciprocal Wills and its revocation is possible during the lifetime of either testator. But if a
testator has obtained benefit then the claim against his property will lie. Where joint Will is a
single document containing the Wills of two persons, mutual Wills are separate Wills of two
persons.

Privileged Wills: Privileged Wills are a special category of Wills and other general Wills are
known as unprivileged Wills. S.65 of ISA provides that a Will made by a soldier or a airman
or a mariner, when he is in actual service and is engaged in actual warfare, would be a
privileged Will. S.66 provides for the mode of making and rules for executing privileged
Wills. Ss. 65 and 66 are special provisions applicable to privileged Wills whereas other
sections relating to Wills are general provisions which will be supplementary to Sections 65
and 66 in case of privileged Wills.

Who Can Make A Will

S.59 of Indian Succession Act provides that every person who is of sound mind and is not a
minor can make a Will.

Wording of The Will

S.74 of ISA provides that a Will maybe made in any form and in any language. No technical
words need to be used in making a Will but if technical words are used it is presumed that
they are in used in their legal sense unless the context indicates otherwise. Any want of
technical words or accuracy in grammar is immaterial as long as the intention is clear.

4
Another general principle applied is that the Will is to be so read as to lead to a testacy and
not intestacy i.e if two constructions are possible then the construction that avoids instestacy
should be followed.
Further there is another principle, which says that the construction that postpones the vesting
of legacy in the property disposed should be avoided. The intention of the testator should be
decided after construing the Will as a whole and not the clauses in isolation. In Gnanambal
Ammal v. T. Raju Aiyar the Supreme Court held that the cardinal maxim to be observed by
the Court in construing a Will is the intention of the testator. This intention is primarily to be
gathered from the language of the document, which is to be read as a whole.

The primary duty of the court is to determine the intention of the testator from the Will itself
by reading of the Will. The SC in Bhura v Kashi Ram held that a construction which would
advance the intention of the testator has be favoured and as far as possible effect is to be
given to the testator’s intention unless it is contrary to law. The court should put itself in the
armchair of the testator. In Navneet Lal v. Gokul & Ors the SC held that the court should
consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationships,
the probability that he would use words in a particular sense. However it also held that these
factors are merely an aid in ascertaining the intention of the testator. The Court cannot
speculate what the testator might have intended to write. The Court can only interprete in
accordance with the express or implied intention of the testator expressed in the Will. It
cannot recreate or make a Will for the testator.
Execution of a Will
On the death of the testator, an executor of the Will (executor is the legal representative for
all purposes of a deceased person and all the property of a testator vests in him. Whereas a
trustee becomes a legal owner of the trust and his office and the property are blended
together) or an heir of the deceased testator can apply for probate. The court will ask the other
heirs of the deceased if they have any objections to the Will. If there are no objections, the
court grants probate. A probate is a copy of a Will, certified by the court. A probate is to be
treated as conclusive evidence of the genuineness of a Will. It is only after this that the Will
comes into effect.

5
Invalid Wills
Wills invalid due to fraud, coercion or undue influence
S.61 of ISA provides that a Will, or any part of Will made, which has been caused by fraud or
coercion, basically not by free will, will be void and the Will would be set aside.
Fraud: S.17 of the Indian Contract Act provides for fraud. Actual fraud can be committed
through 1) misrepresentation 2) concealment . Fraud in all cases implies a willful act on the
part of anyone whereby, another is sought to be deprived by illegal or inequitable means, of
which he is entitled to

Coercion: S.15 of Indian Contract Act defines coercion. Any force or fear of death, or of
bodily hurt or imprisonment would invalidate a Will. In Ammi Razu v. Seshamma , a man
threatening to commit suicide induced his wife and son to give him a release deed. It was
held that even though suicide was not punishable by the Indian Penal Code yet it was
forbidden by law and hence the release deed must be set aside as having been obtained by
coercion.

Undue influence: Undue influence u/s.16 of Indian Contract Act is said to be exercised when
the relations existing between the two parties are such that one of the parties is in the position
to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the
other. However neither fiduciary relationship nor a dominating position would raise a
presumption of undue influence in case of Wills as all influences are not unlawful. Persuasion
on the basis of affection or ties is lawful. The influence of a person in fiduciary relationship
would be lawful so long as the testator understands what he is doing. Thus it can be said that
a testator maybe led but cannot be driven.

6
 CASE ANALYSIS
RAJA RANI SEHGAL VS PURUSHOTTAAM LAL & OTHERS 1992
FACTS
The appellant Smt. Rajrani Sehgal is one of the daughters of deceased Shri Godar Mal,
respondent No. I, Dr. Parshottam Lal, being the son. The said Shri Godar Mal died on 14th
February, 1980 and shortly thereafter a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration
under the provisions of Section 276/278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the
Act') was filed by respondent No. I on the basis of a will, dated 9th September, 1974 alleged
to have been executed by his late father, bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable
properties to him. All the daughters of the deceased including the present appellant were imp
leaded as respondents; two of whom, namely appellant Smt. Rajrani and Smt. Shakuntla,
respondent No. 5 in the petition filed objections to the grant of probate/letter of
administration in favor Dr. Parshottam Lal. The other two daughters Smt. Shanti Devi and
Savitri Devi and legal heirs of a pre-deceased daughter named Smt. Bimla Devi did not,
however, file any objections. The petition was allowed after rejection of all the objections by
order dated 3rd March, 1986, and it is this order which is subject matter of the present appeal.

7
WILL
"I wish that after my death my son Dr. Parshotam Lal will be entitled to the whole of my
properties i.e. house No. T-23,01d Moti Nagar and shop No. 5571 and 5569, Nai Sarak, Delhi
and shop No. T-23, Harbhjan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and movable properties
from the banks, insurance policy and cash and ornaments from lockers, but he shall have to
pay Rs. l,000.00 (Rs. one thousand only) at the time of the marriage of his sister's daughters
and Rs. 500.00 at the time of sister's son's marriage. I also wish that my son Dr. Parshotam
Lal shall not sell or mortgage or transfer or pawn the immovable properties during his life
time. I also wish that my grandsons or my daughter in law shall not sell, transfer or mortgage
the properties to any body after the death of Parshotam Lal. I also further wish that the sons
or daughters of my grandsons shall not sell, transfer or mortgage the properties to any body.
My son shall have the right to collect the rent to use the properties for residential/commercial
purposes. I also wish that my son should give Rs. 50.00 per month to Smt. Bimla Rani Bhasin
after my death. This is my 1st and last will which is irrevocable."

8
APPELLANT CONTENTIONS

The appellant contends that the will suffered from a legal infirmity inasmuch as it offended
the rule against perpetuity as contemplated by Section 114 of the Act. The objection is
elaborated by reference to the terms of the will, (Ex. P. 1) whereby as per appellant's
contentions, the testator bad created perpetuity in his family and had tended to limit the
absolute enjoyment of the estate for an indefinite period because the impugned will imposed
restrictions on the legatee, namely, his son against alienation, sale or transfer and thereafter
on son's sons, son's sons and so on. It is contended that this is tantamount to creation of
successive life estates, which was prohibited by law, and was not permissible under the
Hindu Law of Inheritance and thus the entire bequest by this will was void and inoperative,
and the learned District Judge erred in holding the objections in this respect to be not tenable,
and that it was a case where bequest in favor of the son was absolute, certain restrictions
imposed, which being repugnant to the main purpose of the will, were liable to be ignored.
The appellant has also reiterated other objections taken in her objections filed in the probate
proceedings, namely, as to the execution of the will having not been proved and the will
propounded by respondent No. I not being a genuine will of the deceased father and not in
any case the last one, and that there was certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the
will, which had not been explained by the propounder, and for that reason also, the order of
grant of letter of administration was liable to be set aside

APPELLANT ARGUMENTS

Mr. Lonial appearing for the appellant pressed all these contentions.

In respect to the first objection, namely, the will being void and inoperative for reason of
offending the rule against perpetuity, the learned Counsel argued that a bare reading of the
will Ex. Pi makes manifest the intention of the testator to restrict the bequest in favor of the
son, only to a life estate, expressing a wish that "the said son shall not sell or mortgage or
transfer or pawn the immoveable properties during his life timer". A similar desire was
expressed in respect to the grandsons and daughter-in-law or sons or daughters of the
grandsons. He contended that it was a case where the deceased unmistakably intended each
one of the heir in succession to enjoy only life estate and that this was nothing but creation of
successive life estates or creating a perpetuity in the settlors' family and that in view of the

9
clear prohibition against such a bequest under Section 114 of the Act, the will was invalid,
because it was a case of dispsition without vesting all the properties bequeathed in the legatee
or his heir-in-succession, and that of indefinitely deferring the absolute right of enjoyment of
the estate.

Mr. Lonial placed strong reliance on .a judgment of the Judicial Committee reported as Xii
Indian Appeals 103, Sookhmoy Chander and Another v. Srimati Manohurrt Dasi, holding
that : "Where It clearly appeared that a Hindu testator's Intention was that his estate itself
should not be disposed of, but to make a gift simply with reference to the enjoyment of the
profits, the object being to create a perpetuity as regards the estate, and to limit for an
indefinite period the enjoyment of the profits of it; by Hindu Law the whole will was
invalid."

10
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS

Mr. Makhija appearing for respondent No. 1, rightly argued that the foremost task of the
Court is to determine the real intention of the testator, and that is to be seen from whole of the
context, and once the Court is satisfied that the testator wanted to give his all to the named
legatee, son in the present case, then all subsequent restrictions would be void as being
repugnant to the predominant intention of passing the entire estate to the heir.

At this stage reproduction of the operative part of the Will would facilitate in arriving at a
proper conclusion in respect to the intention of the testator. After staling his age and his state
of health in general, the deceased gave details of his entire properties, movable as well
immovable including the bank account, insurance policy, locker etc. He then proceeded to
state that he had one son and five daughters) whose names were all given. There is then the
recital that all of them are married. He further made his mind clear by saying that all the
daughters were given dowry according to his capacity and he had nothing more to pay them
and he also desired that his heirs did not enter into any litigation after his death

11
REASONING

I have given my earnest thought to this contention raised on behalf of the appellant because it
goes to the rout of the matter and as per appellant's contention invalidates the bequest in its
entirety. On a careful reading of the will, the objection appears to be misconceived, and
betrays an attempt at a misreading of the actual intention of the testator as reflected in the will
in dispute.

It is settled law that in construing a will, the Court has to read, and keep in mind the whole of
the document, and then determine as to what was the dominant intention of the testator and
give effect to the same accordingly. It will be expedient to take note of rule of interpretation
in respect to construction of wills, which as held in Manumallaswami and Another v.
Rinisetti Chinna Narayanswami and Others1 is to construe a will in such a manner, so as to
give effect as far as possible to all the words used by the testator, and the true way to do so
would be to form an opinion apart from the decided cases and then to see whether the decided
cases required any modification of that opinion, not to begin by considering how far the will
in question resemble other will upon which decisions have been given.

The recital in the will makes it abundantly clear that the deceased was In no doubt that he bad
given, all that was required, to his daughters at the time of their marriages and nothing else
remained to be given to them and that it was his son whom he described as very obedient,
who "will be entitled to whole of my properties", (emphasis supplied), which properties were
described in detail firstly in the preamble, and then in the bequest portion including the bank
account, insurance policy, cash and ornaments from locker. He also made a provision for
some amounts to be given at the time of marriages of the sons and daughters of his daughters,
and made obligatory on his son to whom the properties were being bequeathed, to ensure that
a specified amount was given on each occasion.

By excluding his daughters from inheritance, it is manifest that the testator was very deary in
his mind that he wanted his son to get all the properties owned by him, whether moveable or
immoveable, in whatever form. He unequivocally expressed the desire that except for
discharging certain obligations on specified occasions, the son would be entitled to all his
moveable and immoveable properties.

1
AIR 1932 MADRAS 489

12
There is no gainsaying the proposition that in case these are unambiguous dispostive words in
the will, they should be given full effect consistent with the intention of the testator, and in
case any restrictive or qualifying expression is used to circumscribed the enjoyment of the
devise so made, then that has to be ignored as being repugnant to the real intention of the
deceased.

When the testator after making his intention clear of not desiring to give anything to the
daughters, said that his son would be entitled to receive all, and then narrated in minute
details the particulars of all his assets, moveable and immoveable; the unmistakable inference
is that he intended to confer full title to the estate to be left by him on his only son. There is
another Inbuilt indication in the body of the will which lends support to this interpretation of
the will, that the deceased Shri Godar Mal had desired to pass on the entire estate to his son
because there is a recital in the will that whereas the son was very obedient, his grandsons
were not so and were always pestering the testator. In this setting, it could never have been
the intention of the testator to restrict the rights of the son, towards full and natural enjoyment
of the estate to be inherited by him, and binding him down to leave everything for his sons or
sons' sons. It is thus a case where the restrictions imposed against alienation etc. are to be
treated as repugnant to the dominant intention of the testator, and thus liable to be ignored.

13
JUDGE’S VIEW

“Before concluding, I would like to deal with a technical objection raised by learned Counsel
for the appellant as to the original will having not been filed with the petition under Sections
276/278 of the;Act. It is in evidence that original will was not in possession of the petitioner
nor he had any access to it and even no knowledge of the fact as to in whose possession it
was. He did his next best, and applied for a certified copy to the Sub Registrar's office and
after obtaining the same applied for probate, annexing the said copy with the petition. The
objection raised by Mr. Lonial seems to be misconceived, based on a misreading of
provisions of law because all that Section 276 of the Act requires is that the application for
probate or letters of administration shall be made with the will annexed. This will could be
the original will or the certified copy from the Sub Registrar's office, which has to be treated
on an equal footing with the original because of the provisions of Section 62 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

It is a matter for judicial notice that the copy, which is filed before the Sub Registrar is the
one prepared at the same time as the original, and bears signatures of the testator, and the
attesting witnesses, and when a certified copy is given of such a document it is to be treated
as good as original. In cases where copies of original documents are made under public
authority, these rank as primary evidence2. He has given illustration of the probate of a will.
Certified copy of the will is also prepared under official authority, and prepared from the will
filed in original containing signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses, and can
certainly be treated as primary evidence. Moreover, the irregularity, if any, had been cured at
the initial stage of the proceedings because the learned District Judge got the certified copy
produced from the office of the Sub Registrar and have it placed on record after the clerk
from that office slated that he had brought the record maintained in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Kashmere Gate and that register contained a copy of the will signed by the testator
and the attesting witnesses and that it was equivalent to the original. From the very wordings
of Section 276 of the Act. it cannot be said that the failure to annex the original will would be
fatal. The defect if any. had been cured and condoned by the District Judge when he received
the certified copy from the Sub Registrar's office, after satisfying that a duly signed and
attested copy of the will existed in the records of the Sub Registrar and was as good as
primary evidence of the original. Even the law contemplates grant of probate in certain cases
2
SARKAR IN LAW OF EVIDENCE, 13TH EDITION, VOLUME I, PAGE 631

14
as contained in Sections 237 to 239 of the Act, in the absence of original will. The
failure.therefore, to annex the will in original with the probate petition would nut vitiate the
proceedings nor invalidate grant of letters of administration.”

15
JUDGEMENT 

As held in , Smt. Ladhi Bai v. Thakur Shriji and Others, where the attesting witness, while
giving evidence of attestation Inadvertently omits some details but narrates the sequence of
events in a manner which lead to the inference that he had attested in the presence of the
testator, then omission would not invalidate the will. In this view of the matter simply
because Jagdish Lal said that Harbans Lal was also present before the Sub Registrar on that
day, would not detract from the genuineness of the will.

This being the case where the propounder had not taken any part, much less prominent part in
execution of the will, and it having not come from his custody but official custody of the Sub
Registrar's office, or that of Shri S.L Chaudhry, Advocate who cannot be said to be a person
interested in setting up will in favor of the son, to the exclusion of the daughters, including
his wife, the will cannot be considered to be attended with any suspicious circumstances and
when the deceased has been shown to be a person of competent understanding and apparently
a free agent and not in any case under the influence of propounder, no doubt can legitimately
be entertained about the genuineness of the will and the appellant must fail in her opposition
to the grant of letters of administration in favor of respondent no. 1.

On a resume of the aforesaid discussion, lam of my clear view that the learned District Judge
was right in allowing the petition and granting letter of administration to respondent No. 1,
and the appeal has no marits. The same is accordingly dismissed, with costs. Counsel's fee
Rs. 1000.00 Appeal dismissed.

16
CASES MENTIONED IN THE JUDGEMENT

  Jagat Singh and Others v. Sangat Singh and Others, where the will provided that testator's
widow would be exclusive owner of certain property and after her death whatever remained
would be owned by testator's nephew's sons, but the widow and nephew's sons were
prohibited from selling the immoveable property. It was held that the widow has to be treated
to have been made a.n absolute owner and the prohibition against selling had to be
disregarded as repugnant to the absolute will to the widow.

In another case, relating to a will by a Parsi,  Putlibai and Others v. Sorabji Naoroji Gandhi
and Others3, were while conferring rights on his progeny, the testator directed postponement
of division of the estate to a specific period or event, it was held that such a direction is to be
regarded as inoperative, the interest to which it attaches being absolute.

The Orissa High Court in a Division Bench judgment , Bandura Ramamurty v. Koppula
Vajram and Others, also propounded the same proposition that where the properties both
moveable and immoveable have been bequeathed to the mother with all rights, the
subsequent conditions imposed were in the nature of cutting down her absolute estate to a
limited one and the same was held to be void.

The High Court of Gujarat, in a Full Bench judgment , Shantilal Babubhai and Others, v.
Bal Chhani and Others, held that where there was a clear provision for "Malik Hak" making
testator's wife full and absolute owner of all the properties, any subsequent provision that the
remainder was to go to certain other heirs would not detract from the absolute ownership of
the wife.

Oudh High Court, in a Full Bench judgment, Jagmohan Singh v. Sheoraj Kuar and Others 4,
also laid down that where it is found that the testator had intended to give an absolute estate
but attempted to limit the rights of the holder owing to an erroneous view of the power, the
attempt to limit the rights must be rejected on the ground of repugnancy.

The Lahore High Court also took a similar view in a Division Bench judgment, Umrao
Singh v. Baldev Singh and Another 5, holding that where a Hindu testator declared in a will
3
AIR 1923P.C. 122
4
AIR 1928 OUDH 49
5
AIR 1933 LAHORE 201

17
that his three sons were his heirs and were absolute owners in equal shares of his moveable
and immoveable properties, but in a subsequent clause of the will he tried to restrict their
power of alienation up to a certain point, it was held that this restriction was clearly
repugnant to the absolute estate created in the earlier part of the will and, therefore, invalid.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
List Of Cases Referred
1. A.E.G. Carapeit v. A.Y. Derederin AIR 1969 Cal 359
2. Ammi Razu v. Seshamma ILR 41 Mad 33
3. Bhura v Kashi Ram (1994) 2 SCC 111
4. Bodi v. Venkatasami (1915) 24 Pat 395
5. Charu Chandra v. Kitish Chandra AIR 1948 Cal 351
6. Ganpatrao v. Vasantrao AIR 1932 Bom LR 1371
7. Girish Dutt v. Datadin AIR 1934 Oudh 35
8. Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Aiyar AIR 1951 SC 103
List of Statues Referred
1. General Clauses Act, 1897
2. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
3. Hindu Wills Act, 1870
4. Indian Contract Act, 1872
5. Indian Succession Act, 1865
6. Indian Succession Act, 1925
7. Mental Health Act, 1987
8. The Probate And Administration Act, 1981
List of Books Referred
1. Paruck The Indian Succession Act, ed. S S Subramani & K Kannan(9th edition,
Butterworths, New Delhi, 2002)
2. Sanjiva Row’s, The Indian Succession Act, 1925, ed.Prafulla Pant (seventh
edition,Butterworths, New Delhi, 2000)
3. T.P.Gopalakrishnan’s Law of Wills, (sixth edition, the Law Book Company (P) Ltd.,
Allahbad, 1998)

WEBSITES:
1. www.westlaw.com
2. www.manupatrafast.com
3. www.indiankanoon.com
4. www.lawyerservices.com

19
 5. http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?
name=Content&pa=show&pid=125&page=29
6. http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/jul/17spec1.htm
7. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/02/26/stories/0226000k.htm

20