You may also like...
-
-
30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1752156930750226897?t=X94bZZk7CpK0OkqVNSVCGQ&s=08[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: [30/01, 10:28] sekarreporter1: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALAC.M.A.Nos.1468 and 1469 of 2020andC.M.P.No.10765 of 20201.P.Rajendran2.P.Parthiban3.P.Govindaraj4.P.Sundararajan5.R.Prasanth…Appellant’s in both C.M.A.Nos.Vs.K.R.Govindarajan (died)1.K.R.G.Narayanan….Respondent in both C.MA.Nos.2.Rajasekaran3.Thirunavukkarasu4.Gopal5.Mani6.Natarajan(No notice is necessary as the respondents2 to 6 remained absent and set ex partethroughout and hence notice on respondents2 to 6 may be dispensed with)…Respondents in C.M.A.No.1469 of 2020[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: the present case also, one of the reasons assigned by the Appellate Courtfor rejecting the secondary evidence of the Will dated 01.11.1969, is that signaturesof attestors and attesting evidence do not appear. From the aforesaid Judgment, it isclear that the said reason cannot be a ground for rejecting the secondary evidence.
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 30, 2024
-