Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 202 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo on 23 March, 2009

Mohd. Yusuf vs Kanwar Singh Saini on 28 August, 2023

In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vimal CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 121 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Chand Ghevar Chand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (2009) 5 SCC 713, once Mohd. Yusuf has proved that the deed of sale was duly executed and it was neither a sham transaction nor represented a transaction of different character, a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Kanwar Singh Saini vs Shri Mohd. Yusuf on 28 August, 2023

In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vimal CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 121 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Chand Ghevar Chand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (2009) 5 SCC 713, once Mohd. Yusuf has proved that the deed of sale was duly executed and it was neither a sham transaction nor represented a transaction of different character, a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagwati Devi vs Jinni Devi on 17 June, 2025

31. This court finds that such an approach of throwing the burden of proof of due execution of the registered sale deed upon the party relying upon the registered sale deed is contrary to law laid down in Prem Singh 21 2025:JHHC:15803 Vs. Birbal (supra) and also Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo (supra) wherein it has been held that when a deed is a registered one, it carries a presumption that the document was validly executed, transaction was a genuine one and a registered document would prima-facie be valid in law and the onus to prove that it was invalid would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Bhagwati Devi vs Jinni Devi on 17 June, 2025

31. This court finds that such an approach of throwing the burden of proof of due execution of the registered sale deed upon the party relying upon the registered sale deed is contrary to law laid down in Prem Singh 21 2025:JHHC:15803 Vs. Birbal (supra) and also Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo (supra) wherein it has been held that when a deed is a registered one, it carries a presumption that the document was validly executed, transaction was a genuine one and a registered document would prima-facie be valid in law and the onus to prove that it was invalid would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

M.V.Krishna Rao (Deceased) vs /

75.Though the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem 75/103 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.925 of 2010 & Tr.C.S.No.768 of 2013 Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others reported in 2006 5 SCC 353, and in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and Others Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo reported in 2009 5 SCC 713 and in N.A.Chinnasamy and Another Vs. S.Vellingirinathan reported in 2013 6 CTC 809, regarding onus being on the plaintiff, the fact of these cases were entirely on different circumstances wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the onus would be on the person alleging the Sale Deed to be sham and nominal. However, I have already found that in the present case, the 1st defendant had taken undue advantage of his relationship of being a lawyer to the deceased plaintiff, Krishna Rao and therefore, the burden would only be on the 1st defendant and not on the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.V.Krishna Rao (Deceased) vs /

75.Though the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem 74/101 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.925 of 2010 & Tr.C.S.No.768 of 2013 Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others reported in 2006 5 SCC 353, and in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and Others Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo reported in 2009 5 SCC 713 and in N.A.Chinnasamy and Another Vs. S.Vellingirinathan reported in 2013 6 CTC 809, regarding onus being on the plaintiff, the fact of these cases were entirely on different circumstances wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the onus would be on the person alleging the Sale Deed to be sham and nominal. However, I have already found that in the present case, the 1st defendant had taken undue advantage of his relationship of being a lawyer to the deceased plaintiff, Krishna Rao and therefore, the burden would only be on the 1st defendant and not on the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagwati Devi vs Jinni Devi on 17 June, 2025

31. This court finds that such an approach of throwing the burden of proof of due execution of the registered sale deed upon the party relying upon the registered sale deed is contrary to law laid down in Prem Singh 21 2025:JHHC:15803 Vs. Birbal (supra) and also Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo (supra) wherein it has been held that when a deed is a registered one, it carries a presumption that the document was validly executed, transaction was a genuine one and a registered document would prima-facie be valid in law and the onus to prove that it was invalid would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Smt. Anila Sharma vs Ms. Shiksha Rathore on 24 December, 2024

In this connection, it also pertinent to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo, reported as MANU/SC/0441/2009 relied upon by the plaintiffs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the case of the deed of sale being a registered one and apparently containing stipulations of transfer of right, title and interest by the vendor in favour of the vendee, the onus of proof was upon the defendant to show that the said deed was, in fact, not executed or otherwise does not reflect the true nature of transaction. In this judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next