Plaintiff appealed dismissal of his partition suit after the trial Court upheld a Will bequeathing the father's properties to each child. The Division Bench held the Will duly proved on the consistent testimony of two attesting witnesses, treating the adverse handwriting expert opinion as weak opinion evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
R
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 of 2009 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
MR. SHIVANANDA SHENOY S/O LATE K. NARAYANA SHENOY AGED 48 YEARS C/O DINESH RICE MILL COMPOUND MAIN ROAD KULAI, MANGALORE
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE [PH])
AND:
ALSO AT KAMAL NIVAS D.NO.32371, BEHIND HASSAN CENTRE
2
OPP: SRI RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD PUTTUR, MANGALORE TALUK
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.10.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.134/2006 (OLD NO.73/1999) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & ACJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
Appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.134/2006 (Old O.S. No.73/1999) dated 8th October 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and ACJM, Karkala.
3
seeking relief of partition of 'A' schedule immovable property by dividing the same into three shares by metes and bounds and also deliver one such share to him and also directing the partition of 'B' schedule properties and to pay the plaintiff one share thereof.
4
5
schedule 'A' property. Therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit seeking partition.
bequeathed the schedule properties by virtue of a WILL dated 4.1.1998 to all his children in sound disposing state
6
of mind. A copy of the Will was forwarded to the plaintiff as desired by the father of the plaintiff. Even plaintiff requested to send the said copy of the Will to him and accordingly, it was sent to him on 06.10.1998.
7
11. In view of the rival pleadings of both the sides,
the learned trial Court framed in all 8 issues. They read as under.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his father late K. Narayana Shenoy died intestate on 1.5.1998?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit 'B' schedule properties also belonged to late Narayana Shenoy?
3. Whether the plaintiff and defendants have jointly and equally succeeded to the suit schedule properties upon the death of K. Narayana Shenoy as his only legal heirs?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in all the plaint schedule properties?
5. Whether the 1st defendant proves that late K. Narayana Shenoy duly executed the Will dated 4.1.1998 in his favour as alleged?
6. Whether the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is incorrect?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a judgment and decree as prayed for?
8. To what order or decree?
of the plaintiff, he himself entered the witness box as PW.1
and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and closed plaintiff's evidence. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, defendant
8
No.1 himself entered the witness box as DW.1, so also examined two witnesses by name Jocy Pinto and Annappa Mallya as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.D1 to D40 and closed defendants evidence.
arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record by both the sides answered issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 in the negative and Issue No.5 in the affirmative, holding that, the Will so set up by the 1st defendant is proved in accordance with law dated 04.01.1998. Ultimately, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
9
expert. Therefore, this Court has received the expert opinion report.
10
Further he submits that, though there is a distribution of the share in the schedule property it is not properly distributed. The plaintiff is seriously disputing the said Will . As the Will is the outcome of fraud and fabrication, unless the said Will is duly proved in accordance with law, he submits that, the defendant no.1 cannot claim any right over the properties under the said Will .
11
even the Court has to sit on the "arm-chair" of the testator. In construing the said Will according to his submission, endeavour of the Court to ascertain the intention of the testator. This intention has to be gathered primarily from the language of the document itself read as a whole. When the Will is charged with the suspicion, the
12
rules enjoy a reasonable skepticism, not an adulate persistence in disbelieving the said Will.
13
perusal of materials on record, we are required to determine the following points:
i) Whether the execution and attestation of Ex.D1 Will is proved as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?
ii) Whether the learned trial Court was right in accepting the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 as credible to hold that the so called Ex.D1 Will is a genuine and last Will of the Testator Narayana Shenoy?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule property as claimed in the plaint?
the very validity of the Will which was accepted by the trial
Court, before deciding Point No.3, it is just and proper to decide point nos. 1 and 2 together so as to avoid confusion.
14
mathematically precise and certain, and hence, the test should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters.
be referred to in this regard is, H. Venkatachala Iyengar
v. B.N. Thimmajamma , reported in AIR 1959 SC 443
which Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as under:
"19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot
15
say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be 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 dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated."
16
The propounder would be 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 dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free Will . Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound disposing state of mind and his signature as required by law, Court should be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof the essential facts just indicated.
"4. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied that the Will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 but it should also be found that the said Will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will".
17
very much settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, the burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed
and it is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature of effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exist any. In any case of proof of Will , a signature of the testator alone would not prove the execution there of, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if the defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator.
18
Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and
others reported in (2006) 13 SCC 433 in para 32 of the
same judgment it is held as under:
"32. Section 63 of the Succession Act lays down the mode and manner of execution of an unprivileged will. Section 68 of the Evidence Act postulates the mode and manner of proof of execution of document which is required by law to be attested. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of will must be proved at least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A will is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike other documents, proof of execution of any other document under the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable".
19
of execution of a Will is same as in the case of other documents for example, gift or mortgage. Law requires that the proof of execution of a Will has to be attested at least by two attesting witnesses. At least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution and attestation of the Will . Further, it has to be proved, the executant had signed and/or given his thumb impression in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses and attesting witnesses had put their signature in the presence of the executant.
" 3 . With regard to proof of a will the law is well settled that the mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however
20
there were suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will could be accepted as genuine. Such suspicious circumstances may be a shaky signature, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of property or the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator".
21
as per the orders dated 2.2.2018, the disputed and admitted signatures of the testator were referred to the handwriting expert i.e. FSL Bengaluru. The Court has received the test report on 10.5.2022 from the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala, Bengaluru.
of the handwriting expert, "the person who wrote the signature marked as Ex.40(a) to 40(c) and Ex.D6 did not write the signatures marked as Ex.D1(a) to Ex.D1(d) and Ex.D2(a) and Ex.D4(a)". To that effect, he has submitted report with pictorial signatures taken by him at the time of conducting the scientific examination of the admitted and
22
disputed signatures of the testator i.e. father of plaintiff and defendants.
attestation or with regard to proof of signature of the testator and execution of the Will, the best evidence is evidence of eye witnesses. The eye witnesses are DW.3 and 4 by name Jocy Pinto and Annappa Mallya. They were examined before the trial Court. As per the evidence of DW.2, he is a neighbour of deceased Narayan Shenoy. As per his evidence, deceased Narayana wrote a Will in the year 1998. This DW.2 was called by him to put his signature on the said Will. Another witness Annappa Mallya was present at that time. He identified Will as per
Ex.D1. He identified his signature as per Ex.D1(a). He states that in his presence, Narayana Shenoy signed the
23
said Will. Likewise, DW.3 Annappa Mallya also states that he knows about the execution of the Will by Narayan Shenoy. He was called to sign the said Will as attesting witness as per his evidence. According to his evidence, on each page of the said Will , Narayan Shenoy has put his signature.
24
that, signature so found on Ex.D1 is not the signature of the testator Narayana Shenoy. So unless the signature of Narayan Shenoy on the said Will is proved in accordance with law, it cannot be stated that, the Will is duly proved in accordance with law. Much emphasis was laid upon the evidence of DW.1 to 3. No doubt, DW.1 has not participated in the execution of the Will.
25
states that, prior two to three days of the execution of the Will , said Narayana Shenoy put forth his intention to execute the Will and this DW.2 was asked to come to his house on Sunday i.e. on 4.1.1998. It is further stated by him that, when he went to the house of Narayana Shenoy, already DW.3 was present and the Will was prepared. It is further elicited that, at that time, said Narayana Shenoy was in good health. This DW.2 came to know that, the back portion of the house was given to the plaintiff (elder son of testator) and the front portion of the house was given to the defendant no.1. He does not know about the extent of the said property. Except the testator and these two witnesses, nobody was present. He denied all the suggestions directed to him.
Shenoy put his signature in his presence. Thereafter, himself and DW.2 put their signature and he identified his signature on the said Will as per Ex.D1(f) so also identified the signature of testator Narayana Shenoy and DW.2. He too states that, when the said Will was executed by
26
Testator was quite healthy. It is his evidence that, Testator was telling him that, he was suffering from blood pressure. Though the lengthy cross-examination is directed to him, but, he is consistent about the execution of the Will by the testator in his presence and in the presence of DW.2.
27
a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact
is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that
includes:
Kumar Banerjee ( supra ), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the Court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a Will . Finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The Court instead, relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will .
28
Court emphasized that, reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred above, the Court was of the opinion that, these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court also noted that Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts.
v. State (NCT, Delhi), reported in (2003) 1 SCC 21 strengthens the proposition that, it is the duty of the court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the Court may seek independent
29
corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of precedence.
during the course of their evidence both in their examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination
30
identified the signatures of testator Narayana Shenoy on the said Will . It is their evidence that, in their presence, the testator Narayan Shenoy put his signature on the said Will . Thus, it is clear that the signatures of Narayan Shenoy are admitted by these DWs.2 and 3. Even the signature on Ex.D1 belongs to Narayan Shenoy is not denied by the plaintiff. It is his allegation that, by superimposing the said signature, it is fabricated.
of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purported to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person or
31
when in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. Thus, a reading of Section 47
of the Indian Evidence Act makes it very clear that, this provision is concerned with the relevance of the opinion of a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of another person. On reading explanation to Sec.47, it goes on to enumerate the circumstances in which a person may be said to have such acquaintance.
32
much present when the said Will was signed by the testator. They put their signature only after understanding the contents of the same. Even it has come in the evidence of DW.2 that, when he met the testator, he was expressing his intention to execute the Will. The said intention was executed in the form of writing Ex.D1 by the testator. That means, it is clear that, both these DW.2 and 3 were acquainted with the handwriting of the testator in terms of Sec.47 of the Evidence Act. This makes their opinion as to the disputed signature as a relevant fact under Section 47 of the Evidence Act.
33
alleged to be that of the testator, the Court must keep in
view the following consideration:
(i) Firstly, very few people always sign in the same manner on all occasions;
(ii) Secondly, the opinion of an expert as to the genuineness of the signature should be received with great caution especially in a case where there is positive evidence of persons who saw the testator sign the Will;
(iii)Thirdly, all the tests evolved by experts in the matter of comparison of handwriting and signature are merely tentative in character;
(iv) Lastly, opinion evidence is usually very weak evidence.
Indian Evidence Act, court is competent to compare the disputed signature with admitted signature. No doubt,
Section 73 of Evidence Act, empowers the court to see for itself and compare the disputed signatures with admitted
signature. Though as per the FSL report, we have seen the enlarged copies of disputed and admitted signatures, we do not venture to go in for such comparison as contemplated under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The reason being, we have taken opinion of handwriting expert
34
as only one piece of evidence creating suspicion and we
are not basing our conclusion solely on that basis.
stated about they witnessing signing of Will by the testator. Even the tenor of recitals in Ex.D1 shows that, he has not used any harsh words either against the plaintiff
or defendant nos. 1 and 2. So far as immovable property is concerned, he divided the same into two divisions and allotted a portion to defendant no.1 in which, himself and defendant no.1 were in occupation. It has come in the evidence of DW.1 that, defendant no.1 took care of deceased-father during his lifetime. When deceased suffered heart attack and admitted in the hospital, this plaintiff visited the hospital only and it was defendant no.1 who took care of his father when testator was admitted in the hospital. A provision is made to the daughter in the said Will to give her cash which was deposited in the Bank by the testator. Already defendant no.2 had received the
said amount. The testator had not at all expressed any ill Will or animosity against the plaintiff. He never used any
35
harsh words. In turn, it was defendant no.1 who wrote a letter to the plaintiff stating that, his father has misunderstood him and because of that, father is not in talking terms with him etc., Even defendant no.1 has requested the plaintiff to come and reside in the said house itself. It is not the case of the plaintiff that, he has replied to the said letter.
appellant plaintiff relies upon the Handwriting Expert Report but, the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 do establish
36
about their presence when the Will was executed. In the present case, in view of the clear evidence that, the testator had signed the Will and both the attesting witnesses have testified that the said signature was made before them and they themselves having signed as attesting witnesses and further, the statement that, the time of execution the testator was of sound mind which is not even disputed by the plaintiff. These circumstances go against the very case set up by the plaintiff in his evidence with regard to the fabrication of Will by defendant No.1. Thus, the plaintiff having failed to show any such suspicion as to cast any doubt regarding execution of the documents, the argument so advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that, the said Will was not executed by the testator cannot be accepted.
37
failed to show any suspicious circumstances, Ex.D1 is duly proved in accordance with law. There is no suggestion made to attesting witnesses that, as to why they would tell lie and against the plaintiff. Nothing has been suggested as to why DWs.2 and 3 will depose to support the defendant No.1. Inspite of long cross-examination directed DWs.2 and 3, these two attesting witnesses stood by the said statement and nothing had been brought which would belie their testimony.
on a fact, it must be based on clear proved evidence that, he had deposed a fact which is contrary to either admitted
fact or proved fact which is in conflict with the testimony given by him. Mere casting aspersions on the possibility of the fact is not sufficient to disbelieve his testimony specially where deposition is made of a fact which is of a period more than 10 to 15 years back. The witnesses have clearly stated that, it was Narayana Shenoy, who called them at his residence and accordingly, they reached there and they have been shown with the Will Ex.D1 of
38
which they cursorily looked into and passed back to the testator who signed before them which was followed by his own signature and thereafter, the signatures of DWs.2 and
effect. Attester called them to be attesting witnesses to his Will . Therefore, they cannot be termed as even chance witnesses. Even law says that, merely the attesting witnesses are chance witnesses is also no ground to
39
disbelieve their evidence in view of the judgment in Shashi
Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, reported in
AIR 1964 SC 529 , para 22 of the said judgment held as
under:
" ……. it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before, acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence".
Pradesh , reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 , it is held as under:
"…This Court had an occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in handwriting and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky found a conviction solely on the evidence of handwriting expert before acting upon such evidence, the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial ".
report regarding comparing of admitted and disputed signatures, according to him, the variations found between
the admitted signatures are natural one because of age of
the testator this possibility cannot be ruled out. To say so,
40
that scientific examiner is not testified before the Court. It
is quite natural that, the writer has certain variations in his writing and even in signatures. The defendant had challenged the said report of the scientific examiner.
41
he was at liberty to show his prejudice as he desired. He has equally divided schedule immovable property and also has bequeathed money in favour of his daughter. Therefore, it is unsafe to cast doubt on the execution of the document only on the account of so called signature is fabricated. In view of the evidence of DWs.2 and 3, it cannot be stated that, the signature on the Will of the testator is fabricated. It also can be stated that, testator being a prudent man while disposing of his property disposed the same with prudent conscience having love towards plaintiff and defendants. As plaintiff is well off therefore, he was allotted half share in the property where there is no contradiction. Defendant No.1 being the 2nd son depending upon the business carried on by the testator, therefore, as a prudent man, the testator might
have thought of bequeathing constructed portion to defendant No.1. By that, the testator has not taken away the right of the property earned by him as the testator has right to give the property to one the whom he likes. It is
thus, very unsafe to disbelieve or draw inference of suspicion only on the basis of the disposable of the
42
property or about the suspicion raised by the appellant with regard to the said Will . A testator is entitled to express his personal whims, even though erroneous, even for divesting from a property of a legitimate person may be on account of groundless object.
by Mantha Ramamurthi, 2nd Edition page 64 , the
learned author has stated about the duty of the court with regard to the Will .
" The first duty of the Court is to take note of the setting in which the Will was made by the testator. This is also known as the "armchair" rule. In other words, so far as permitted by evidence, the Court should place itself in the testator's armchair at that time he executed the Will and find out how the testator regarded the affairs and what feeling he had in respect of the persons he was benefiting or disinheriting: The court has then to ascertain if the testator was in a position to understand the nature of the act and its effects, the extent of the property which he was disposing of, and whether he was able to apprehend and appreciate the claims to which he had to give effect.
43
The Court should be astute in ascertaining if any disorder of the mind had poisoned his affections, perverted his sense of right, or prevented the exercise of his natural faculties. If the Court is satisfied that the Will is genuine, it is bound to give effect to it even if some of its provisions are extraordinary, unnatural, unreasonable or iniquitous. Insofar as the Will is a legal declaration of a man's intention as to how he wants to disposition to be made of his property after his death his declared intention must be given effect to, unless forbidden by law."
44
respondent, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.
Resultantly, we pass the following:
Order
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE
Sk/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether execution and attestation of Ex.D1 Will was proved under Section 68 Evidence Act and Section 63 Indian Succession Act?
Whether the trial Court rightly accepted the evidence of attesting witnesses DWs.2 and 3 over the handwriting expert report?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. ThimmajammaRelied on¶27
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma - AIR 1959 SC 443 · Who else cites this
Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar KaurRelied on¶29
(1998) 4 SCC 384 · Who else cites this
Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti RaoRelied on¶31
(2006) 13 SCC 433 · Who else cites this
Guro (Smt) v. Atma SinghRelied on¶34
(1992) 2 SCC 507 · Who else cites this
Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar BanerjeeRelied on¶63
Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 · Who else cites this
Murari Lal v. State of M.P.Relied on¶48
(1980) 1 SCC 704 · Who else cites this
Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi)Relied on¶49
(2003) 1 SCC 21 · Who else cites this
Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶46
Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh - AIR 1957 SC 381 · Who else cites this
Magan Bihari Lal v. State of PunjabReferred¶46
Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091 · Who else cites this
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.Referred¶46
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., - (1996) 4 SCC 596 · Who else cites this
Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶64
AIR 1967 SC 1326 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Shivananda Shenoy
Nithyananda Shenoy
Asha @ Geetha Kamath
Krishna S Dixit
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
