Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Tuesday, 11 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-01-25 allowed

H.V. Nirmala & Anr vs R. Sharmila & Anr

Bench: 2 — Abhay Manohar Sapre

In Brief

The deceased Ramaiah executed two Wills: one in 1980 favouring his children from his first wife (Sharmila and Umesh), and another in 1995 in favour of different beneficiaries. Umesh and others compromised a partition suit based on the 1995 Will in 1997, but Sharmila—not a party to that compromise—sued separately claiming ownership under the 1980 Will. The Trial Court rejected her claim for insufficient evidence, but the High Court allowed her appeal, finding the 1980 Will properly proved. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that a registered Will can be proved through certified copies and secondary evidence, and that a compromise decree does not bind non-parties. The later Will did not revoke the earlier one as it lacked express revocation language.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Succession Law Evidence Will Partition of Property Compromise Decree Registered Will Secondary Evidence

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login