Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Succession Act, 1925

59 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SWARNALATHA & ORS.versusKALAVATHY & ORS.

2022 INSC 37230 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The married couple Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal executed separate wills bequeathing their properties to their two sons, excluding their daughter Kalavathy who had earlier received gifts. After the death of the testators, the daughter and the second son filed a suit for partition and contested the probate of the

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusLORD NORTHBOOK AND ORS.

2019 INSC 96928 August 2019Matter referred to larger bench

The testator, Raja Sardar Singh, died in 1987 without apparent legal heirs and had executed a will bequeathing his assets to the Khetri Trust. The Trust sought probate, which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court, while agnates also objected. The Rajasthan Collector, after an inquiry, initiated escheat proceedings unde

ITTIANAM AND ORS.versusCHERICHI @ PADMINI

2010 INSC 43627 July 2010Disposed off

The dispute concerned the grant of letters of administration for seven properties bequeathed in a Will dated 8 May 1967. The testator had acquired full title to items 4‑7 through a sale deed executed on 2 May 1967 and registered on 8 May 1967, before his death on 20 July 1971. The High Court limited the grant to items

MD. ABRARversusMEGHALAYA BOARD OF WAKF & ANR.

2019 INSC 108726 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Md. Abrar, a descendant through the female line of the waqif Haji Elahi Baksh, sought appointment as a joint mutawalli of a waqf created by a deed dated 9‑Nov‑1936. The deed named two original joint mutawallis, Md. Shafi and Kammu Mia, and provided that upon the death of either, the survivor would become

JOSEPH EASWARAN WAPSHARE & ORS.versusSHIRLEY KATHELEEN WHEELER

2019 INSC 27726 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Joseph Easwaran Wapshare, obtained a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as the son and lineal descendant of the intestate Gorden Wapshare. The respondent, Shirley Katheleen Wheeler, who is the daughter of Beatrice (the wife of Edward Wapshare, Gorden's brother),

STATE OF HARYANAversusHARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 78625 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana challenged a High Court order that had set aside the findings of the trial court and first appellate court which held that a will purportedly executed by Kishan Singh in favour of Harnam Singh was not genuine. The dispute centered on whether the will satisfied the requirements of Section 63 of the

GOPAL SWAROOPversusKRISHNA MURARI MANGAL & ORS.

2010 INSC 81725 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a partition suit against his father, the Karta of a joint family, who died during the proceedings. The plaintiff's brother, Gopal Swaroop, claimed that the deceased had executed a will leaving his share to him. The trial court and a single High Court judge held that the will was duly proved, but a D

GAIV DINSHAW IRANI & ORS.versusTEHMTAN IRANI & ORS.

2014 INSC 34125 April 2014Dismissed

The original tenant, Bomanji Irani, bequeathed his government‑owned tenancy to his wife Daulatbai, who was a residuary legatee, and the tenancy was held jointly by her and their five sons. After Daulatbai's death, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) transferred the tenancy to one son, Dinshaw Irani, based on a 1961

MURUGAN & ORS.versusKESAVA GOUNDER (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

2019 INSC 25925 February 2019Dismissed

The suit concerned property of Petha Gounder that had been sold by his son Balaraman both in his own name and on behalf of his minor son Palanivel without court permission, violating Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. The plaintiffs, sons of Kannan, filed a suit in 1992 for declaration and posses

RAMESH VERMA (D) TR. LRS.versusLAJESH SAXENA (D) BY LRS & ANR.

2016 INSC 105324 November 2016Dismissed

The case arose from a partition suit filed by the deceased Lajesh Saxena seeking a share in the joint Hindu family property. The trial court allotted shares, which the High Court altered by increasing the daughter’s share to one‑eighth and rejecting the validity of three wills under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The

KANTA YADAVversusOM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS.

2019 INSC 80824 July 2019Dismissed

Zorawar Singh owned immovable property in Delhi and executed a will (1985) and codicil (1995) bequeathing it to the parties. After his death, the respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning the will, while the appellant filed a suit for natural succession. The Delhi High Court held that

SHIVAKUMAR & ORS.versusSHARANABASAPPA & ORS.

2020 INSC 34924 April 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of several properties on the basis of a Will dated 20‑05‑1991 executed by the deceased Sri Sangappa and sought to declare a trust created by the defendants void. The defendants challenged the genuineness of the Will, pointing to numerous irregularities such as the use of d

N.P. SASEENDRANversusN.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 38824 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant (son) challenged a decree of the Kerala High Court that declared a 1985 deed executed by his father in favour of his sister (plaintiff) to be a settlement and a valid gift, thereby invalidating a later cancellation deed and sale deed dated 19.10.1993. The core issue was whether the 1985 instrument was a g

GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusPATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI

2019 INSC 107023 September 2019Dismissed

The appellants, sons of the deceased donor, claimed that a property gifted by their father to the respondent was ancestral and that the donor lacked authority to execute the gift deed, alleging the deed was forged. The trial court held the property ancestral, a view affirmed by the first appellate court, but the Gujara

JAI MAHAL HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR DEVRAJ & ORS.

2015 INSC 69623 September 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the transfer of shares of Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. after the death of Late Maharaja Jagat Singh, who had bequeathed his shares to his mother Gayatri Devi (GD). GD and the grandchildren (the DR Group) obtained a succession certificate and GD executed a transfer deed and a will

SADARAM SURYANARAYANA & ANR.versusKALLA SURYA KANTHAM & ANR.

2010 INSC 72622 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a Will dated 4 September 1976 in which the testatrix bequeathed certain properties in absolute terms to her two daughters, with a later clause stating that after the daughters' deaths the remaining property should devolve to their female children. After one daughter died intestate, her sons took poss

MATHAI SAMUEL AND ORS.versusEAPEN EAPEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 52621 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned whether the recitals in Exhibit A1, particularly item 1 of Schedule 8, created a testamentary disposition (a Will) or a settlement/gift that vested rights in the plaintiffs during the executants' lifetimes. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the composite document, distinguishing between test

OM PRAKASH & ANR.versusMISHRI LAL (DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LR. SAVITRI DEVI

2017 INSC 24521 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Om Prakash and another, joint owners of a property, filed an eviction suit under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against Mishri Lal (deceased) represented by his legal heirs. The tenants admitted tenancy under the appellants' grandmother but denied the appellants as landlor

MOTURU NALINI KANTHversusGAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)

2023 INSC 100420 November 2023Dismissed

The appellant, Moturu Nalini Kanth, filed a suit as a minor claiming absolute title to the properties of the deceased Venkubayamma based on a registered will dated 03.05.1982 and a registered adoption deed dated 20.04.1982. The trial court upheld the suit, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the decision, holdin

KAVITA KANWARversusMRS. PAMELA MEHTA & ORS.

2020 INSC 39719 May 2020Dismissed

The appellant, the younger daughter of Smt. Amarjeet Mamik, sought probate of a 2003 Will that left the entire immovable property to her, while excluding her brother and elder sister. The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court rejected the probate petition, finding numerous unexplained suspicious circumstances, including

DHANPATversusSHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 31619 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Dhanpat sought a declaration that he, his mother and sisters were entitled to equal shares in a suit land, challenging a Will dated 30‑April‑1980 that favored his brother’s sons. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the Will was duly executed and the property had been

RAJ KUMARI AND OTHERSversusSURINDER PAL SHARMA

2019 INSC 138817 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Raj Kumari filed a partition suit claiming a one‑fourth share in a tenement allotted to her mother Suhagwanti. The respondent Surinder Pal Sharma defended the suit by producing a registered Will dated 02‑01‑1992, allegedly executed by Suhagwanti in his favour and attested by Ramesh Kumar (the appellant's

TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUSTversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 55117 September 2020Case Partly allowed

The H.C. Dhanda Trust executed a Deed of Assent to vest two immovable properties in its beneficiaries, paying only Rs.200 stamp duty. The Collector of Stamps treated the deed as a gift deed, levied a deficit duty of Rs.1.28 crore and imposed a ten‑times penalty of Rs.12.80 crore, which was upheld by the Board of Revenu

GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusJAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 86617 July 2025Dismissed

Maya Singh died leaving a registered Will dated 16 May 1991 that bequeathed his 67-kanal land to his nephew, Gurdial Singh, while omitting any reference to his wife, Jagir Kaur, and providing no reason for her disinheritance. The nephew sued to enforce the Will, and the wife filed a separate suit claiming she was the l

V. KALYANASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ANR.versusL. BAKTHAVATSALAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 45517 July 2020Dismissed

The case involves a property dispute between the branch of Lakshmiah Naidu (respondents) and legatees under a Will (appellants) of Rangaswami Naidu, who died on 01.06.1955 before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellants claimed that Rangaswami Naidu had severed the joint family status through a newspaper notice a

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusKAHLON @ JASMAIL SINGH KAHLON (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NARINDER KAHLON GOSAKAN AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 40316 August 2021Case Partly allowed

The claimant suffered severe injuries in a motor accident in 1999 and filed a claim under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,00,000, which the claimant appealed; he died in 2015 of causes unrelated to the accident, and his daughter was substituted as

BALATHANDAYUTHAM & ANR.versusEZHILARASAN

2010 INSC 21716 April 2010Dismissed

The father executed a registered Will in 1972 bequeathing property to two sons and two daughters, omitting his eldest son (appellant). After the father's death in 1980, the appellant claimed that the earlier Will had been revoked by two subsequent unregistered Wills dated 25 April 1980 and 2 May 1980, which allegedly g

VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2020 INSC 42715 June 2020Dismissed

The case concerned agricultural land in Surat district that was held by Samubhai Budhiabhai, a tenant who became a deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Samubhai executed a will bequeathing the land to Vinodchandra Kapadia, who was not an agriculturist. The State challenged the dis

SHAKTI YEZDANI & ANR.versusJAYANAND JAYANT SALGAONKAR & ORS.

2023 INSC 107614 December 2023Dismissed

The testator, Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar, died leaving fixed deposits and mutual fund securities for which he had nominated certain family members under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Bye‑law 9.11.1 of the Depositories Act, 1996. The nominees claimed that the nomination gave them absolute beneficial ownersh

MANJU PURIversusRAJIV SINGH HANSPAL & ORS.

2019 INSC 124414 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Surjan Singh Randhawa executed an unregistered Will in 1961 bequeathing property to his eldest daughter, Gian Hanspal. Twenty years later, a probate petition was filed and the Calcutta High Court granted probate on 4 June 1982 without issuing citations to all legal heirs, notably the younger daughter Beena

SHIV KUMAR & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 114214 October 2019Dismissed

The petitioners purchased land in Delhi after a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued, and later sought a declaration under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 that the acquisition had lapsed.

ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusSM. RANJAN BALA DASI & ORS.

2023 INSC 22514 March 2023Dismissed

Gosaidas Samanta executed a will in 1929 bequeathing his extensive property to his sons and grandson. The attesting witnesses to the will were dead, and the propounder relied on depositions of the testator's sons, a witness who saw the signing, and related documents such as a 1945 partition deed and an acknowledgment d

VIJAYA UKARDA ATHOR (ATHAWALE)versusSTATE OF.MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2015 INSC 3914 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Vijaya Ukarda Athor, daughter of a deceased municipal employee, applied for a compassionate appointment in 1997 as a minor and again in 1998 after attaining majority. She married in 2009, and the corporation appointed the deceased's illegitimate son in 2012, rejecting her claim on the ground that only unmarried daughte

JOSE PAULO COUTINHOversusMARIA LUIZAVALENTINA PEREIRA & ANR.

2019 INSC 102913 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the succession of property belonging to a Goan domicile, Joaquim Mariano Pereira, who had bequeathed a Bombay immovable to one daughter while the other two daughters contested the applicability of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, to that property. The dispute centered on whether the Portuguese Civil

RAVINDER NATH AGARWALversusYOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 8612 February 2021Disposed off

The petitioners, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal and his sister Lily Nath, sought transfer of a partition suit and a testamentary case involving a Will dated 06‑04‑2011 of their father. The first petition asked to move the partition suit from the Additional District Judge, Saket, Delhi to the District Court, Nainital, whil

SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2011 INSC 73911 October 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of transactions that rely on Sale Agreements, General Power of Attorney or Wills (collectively termed SA/GPA/Will transfers) as a mode of transferring immovable property. It observed that such arrangements are used to evade stamp duty, registration fees and to facilitate black‑mo

MURTHY & ORS.versusC. SARADAMBAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 86210 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased E. Srinivasa Pillai executed a will bequeathing his house to his only son S. Damodaran, excluding his daughters. The will was produced fifteen years after the testator's death by the son’s widow, C. Saradambal, who sought Letters of Administration, while the daughters contested its validity alleging fabric

SWAMINATHAN & ORS.versusALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2022 INSC 2839 March 2022Dismissed

The case concerned the revocation of letters of administration granted to a brother of the deceased under a registered will dated 23‑08‑1991. Another brother filed an application for revocation, alleging that all legal heirs had not been impleaded in the proceedings. The Madurai Bench of the High Court held that a "jus

LEELA RAJAGOPAL & ORS.versusKAMALA MENON COCHARAN & ORS.

2014 INSC 6128 September 2014Dismissed

The mother, K.P. Janaki Amma, executed two wills in 1981 and 1982 bequeathing a house to her daughter Kamala Menon and granddaughter Geetha, expressly excluding her sons. The sons challenged the validity of the later will, alleging undue influence, suspicious circumstances such as the daughter’s involvement in executio

B.C. SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusJ.M. UTARID (D) BY LRS.

2018 INSC 4588 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. B.C. Singh and his wife, Dr. S.L. Singh, jointly purchased a property, each holding an equal half. After Dr. S.L. Singh died intestate without issue, her husband claimed his statutory share under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, while the defendant J.M. Utarid, a distant kindred, claimed a one‑quarter share as a co

DEREK A C LOBO & ORS.versusULRIC M A LOBO (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2023 INSC 10937 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants sought probate of a Will dated 10‑Nov‑1992 executed by their mother, Cecelia Gertrude Lobo, which was contested by one brother (defendant No.5) on grounds of alleged suspicious circumstances. The trial court found that the Will was duly executed, satisfying Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusA.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3727 July 2010Dismissed

The testator’s 1951 Will gave life interest in two houses to her sisters and, after their deaths, vested absolute title in the male heirs, subject to a clause that any sale must be to the other male heirs at market price and not to strangers. After a partition, Rukmani Ammal and her son sold one house (property B) to K

SAMIR CHANDRA DASversusBIBHAS CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

2010 INSC 2957 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Jogesh Chandra Das executed a Will in 1983 appointing his wife Parul Bala Das and son Samir Chandra Das as executors. During probate proceedings the executors sold land covered by the Will; Samir signed as a witness to the sale deed. The Calcutta High Court held that by signing as a witness Samir had implicitly renounc

ABCversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2015 INSC 4826 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

An unwed Christian mother filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking to be appointed guardian of her five‑year‑old son. The Guardian Court dismissed the petition because the mother refused to disclose the name and address of the child’s putative father, holding that Section 11 requir

RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWATversusDR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE

2019 INSC 11224 October 2019Dismissed

Antoinette Bhagwat's will was probated in California and, in ancillary proceedings, letters of administration were granted by the Bombay High Court in 1994 to Dr. Surendra Parakhe. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, a relative of the deceased's husband, claimed he had no notice of this grant and filed a petition in 1999 seeking

KUMUD LALLversusSURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 4434 May 2026Disposed off

The husband of a patient filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence by Dr. P.B. Lall, which was partly upheld by the District Forum awarding compensation. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the award, and the matter proceeded to the National Co

C.P. FRANCISversusC.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 10713 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the succession to the suit‑schedule property of the deceased parents, C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius, who had executed a joint will bequeathing the property to the appellant C.P. Francis. The respondents, other children of the deceased, challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capa

M.B. RAMESH (D) BY LRS.versusK.M. VEERAJE URS (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 3083 May 2013Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit claiming title to ancestral land based on a will dated 24‑10‑1943 executed by the testatrix, Smt. Nagammanni, and registered the next day. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the will was not proved because it did not satisfy Section 63(c) of the S

SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS.versusMR. MAHAVEER PRASAD

2015 INSC 4692 July 2015Dismissed

The deceased Kanhaiya Lal executed three wills, the last dated 15 November 1978, bequeathing his property to his adopted son Mahaveer Prasad. The non‑adopted family members challenged the 1978 will as a forgery and claimed the earlier registered will of 23 December 1974 was the last valid testament. The trial court hel

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS.versusSURESH CHAND AND ANR.

2025 INSC 10591 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property on the basis of an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a receipt of consideration, an affidavit and a registered will executed by his father, Kundan Lal. The trial court and High Court had upheld his claim, but the Supreme Court examined whether these document

JAGDISH CHAND SHARMAversusNARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

2015 INSC 3761 May 2015Dismissed

The appellant sought a Letter of Administration on the basis of a Will dated 22‑10‑1973, allegedly executed by the deceased Nathu Singh in favour of the appellant. The trial court held the Will validly executed and granted the administration, but the High Court set aside that order, finding the Will not proved under Se

SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY (D) BY LRS.versusGODI JAYA RAMI REDDY & ANR.

2011 INSC 2541 April 2011Dismissed

Bijivemula Subba Reddy executed a 1920 muffussil will bequeathing all his movable and immovable property to his minor granddaughter Lakshumamma, appointing his son‑in‑law Rami Reddy as executor and guardian. The will contained a defeasance clause: if the daughter Pitchamma and Rami Reddy failed to adopt a son who would

VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS

2024 INSC 1591 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging that the sole proprietor developer failed to complete construction and pay dues under a 1996 Development Agreement. The developer died during the pendency of the case, and the legal representatives were directed by the NCDRC to both pay monetary amounts and to perform

GOPAL KRISHAN & ORS.versusDAULAT RAM & ORS.

2025 INSC 181 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Gopal Krishan claimed title to a one‑quarter share of land in Gurdaspur based on a Will executed by the deceased Sanjhi Ram on 7 November 2005, which was subsequently transferred and sold. The respondents challenged the Will, alleging it was forged and that the attesting witness had not testified that the

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search