Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)

Bherulal And Anr. vs Mohanlal And Ors. on 8 May, 1980

11. It was lastly contended that the learned lower courts were not justified in relying upon the circumstance in discarding the positive evidence tendered by the appellants. I am unable to agree with this contention because In my opinion, both the courts below have given cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence adduced by the appellants to prove the execution of Ex. A/1 and Ex. A/2 by Brijlal. I may state that Ex. A/2 and Ex. A/3 were of no importance because admittedly they could not pass any title in favour of the appellants. The title if at all could be passed in favour of the appellants, by virtue of Ex. A/1 but it could not be proved that was executed by Brijlal. The argument of the learned appellants based on the following observations in the case of Raj Singh v. Ch. Gajraj Singh are not material for the decision of the case, inasmuch as, in my opinion, the finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below is neither perverse nor (sic)unsupported by any evidence or vitiated by an essentially wrong approach in (sic)the appreciation of the evidence.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nanak And Ors. vs Basanta And Ors. on 14 July, 1975

11. My attention was drawn to the ruling reported in Raj Singh v. Ch. Gajraj Singh, (1957 All U 822) = (AIR 1958 AU 335). This ruling is distinguishable on facts. The case in that ruling related to the nuisance caused by the starting of a bhatta and the smoke from the bhatta adversely affected the plaintiff's grove and caused damage to its trees and fruits. The present case is not a case of private or public nuisance. In the present case the defendants had demolished the nali from which the plaintiffs used to irrigate their fields and for which they had no right. The above ruling is, therefore, inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abbireddi Sarojini And Four Ors. vs Batchu China Kamalam on 29 August, 2007

Reliance also was placed on the judgments reported in Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. 1961 W.L.R. 683; Bridlington Relay Ltd. v. Youkshire Electricity Board (1865) 1 Ch. 436; Land Mortgage Bank of India v. Ahmedbhoy Habibbhoy I.L.R. 8 Bombay 35; Shaik Ismail v. Venkatanarasimhulu AIR 1986 Madras 905; Raj Singh v. Gajraj Singh ; Stuces v. Bridgeh (1879) II Ch. D. 852; Dhannalal v. Chittarsingh and Biharilal v. James Maclean AIR 1924, Allahabad 392.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1