Testamentary capacity
Testamentary capacity legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Invalid. Powers of appointment, so special a feature in English law, are not recognised in Muslim law. The matter seems never to have been discussed. In such circumstances. and at this date, to add to the testamentary capacity of Muslims the right to create powers of appointment might seem to encroach on the sphere of the Legislature.
Will-Validity-Testamentary capacity-Draft of will prepared under instructions of testator-Testator was so deficient in memory that he was oblivious of claims of his relatives Forgetfulness was inducing cause of his choosing strangers to be his legatees-Held that will was invalid.
"Testamentary capacity", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946455
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Testamentary capacity"
P L D 1947 Privy Council 400
SURYANARAYANAMURTHI-Appellant Versus SURAMMA and others-Respondents
Court:P L D 1966 Dacca 154
SARALA BALA SIKDER‑Appellant Versus AGHORANANDA SIKDER AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court:P L D 1964 Supreme Court 329
MUHAMMAD AKBAR SHAH-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF SHAH AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: (a) Will-(Genuineness)-Testamentary capacity -Sound dis posing mind-Not disproved by existence to some extent of brain affection-Question to consider is whether propositus was incapable of understanding nature and consequence of his act-State of mind on date of execution of will to be ascertained-Attack of paralysis may affect intellect to some extent but does not necessarily negative existence of sound disposing mind-Insane person may have lucid intervals-Sound and disposing mind means only "capacity to com prehend nature and effect of will"-Sajid Ali v. Ibad Ali 23 Cal. 1. rel.P L D 1957 Dacca 513
Srimati PRIYABALA MAZUMDAR‑ — Appellant Versus NALINI MOHAN MAZUMDAR and another — Respondents
Court:P
SARDAR NAWAZISH ALI KHAN-Appellant Versus SARDAR ALI RAZA KHAN-Respondent
Court:P L D 1954 Dacca 155
JNANENDRANATH MONDAL and other Appellants Versus KANAI LAL MOULIK and others‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1949 Privy Council 156
Mst. GOMTIBAI-Appellant Versus KANCHHEDILAL and others-Respondents
Court:1982K105
KENNETH DEAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)‑Plaintiff Versus 'ARCHIE DEAN AND ANOTHER‑Defendants
Court: obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence, held, shifts upon party seeking to challenge will on sun grounds.‑Will‑Burden of proof.P L D 1947 Privy Council 365
RATTAN SINGH and others-Appellants Versus AMIRCHAND and others-Respondents
Court: The issue of undue influence is in this case purely one of fact and as the learned Chief Justice has found in favour of the respondents, their Lordships would not be disposed to reverse his finding though the evidence gives reason for the gravest suspicion. p. 369 BL D 1957 Dacca 548
BISHAKHA GUPTA‑ — Appellant Versus BEPIN BEHARI BISWAS and others‑ — Respondents
Court: