Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Sheojee Tiwary And Anr. vs Prema Kuer And Ors. on 28 November, 1963

Shiv Narain And Ors. vs Mst. Raji And Ors. on 31 March, 1981

In Sheojee Tiwary v. Prema Kuer AIR 1964 Pat 187, one Rajbhukhan became the sole surviving coparcener on Roshan's death, while Roshan's widow Manbirta was entitled to maintenance. Similarly, in respect of the other set of properties, Ramcharitar became the sole surviving coparcener on the death of Nauratan, but Prema, widow of the predeceased son of Nauratan, was entitled to maintenance. On the death of Rajbhukhan in 1946, Ramcharitar succeeded to the entire estate of both the branches, but Roshan's widow Manbirta continued to remain in possession of Rajbhukhan's property, When Ramcharitar himself died in 1954, Prema widow of the predeceased son of Nauratan took possession of the other set of properties. A suit was filed by the close reversioners of Ramcharitar for the recovery of possession of the properties from the two widows, claiming to be legal owners of such properties, as the heirs of Ramcharitar. In these circumstances Mohapatra, J. made the following observations (at p. 192):--
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ram Pukar Singh And Ors. vs Sita Ram Mahton And Ors. on 11 September, 1972

In order to substantiate his contention he referred to Triloke Prasad Singh V. Umanand Lal, (AIR 1922 Pat 447), end Sheojee Tiwary v. Prema Kuer, (AIR 1964 Pat 187). Mr. Prasad fairly conceded that Barwarda was admissible in evidence, but the same is of no consequence, because it related to the period prior to the publication of the revisional survey khatian (Ext. C), which was published on the 6th January, 1919, wherein the suit land is recorded in the name of the defendants. In the remark column it is mentioned "waste kam barahil ke mila hai". Therefore, Mr. Prasad submitted that even if the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that it was not admissible since Barwarda was not an important piece of document to establish the case of the plaintiffs, it would not be necessary to remand the case to the appellate Court on that account. In my view, the submission of Mr. Prasad is well founded. I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the appellate Court due to the flaw which it has committed in holding that Barwarda was not admissible.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Uma Devi And Ors. vs Ram Charan Ram And Ors. on 19 May, 1986

Section 90 no doubt raises some presumption about the authorship of a writing if a document is 30 years old and if produced from proper custody but that is only a manner of proof. Whether the statements made in that document would be relevant will depend upon the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Clause (5) of Section 32. The writer must be shown to have special means of knowledge about relationship. If it does not become relevant, Section 90 will not be called for.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Phool Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India on 24 December, 2007

In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgment reported in Sheojee Tiwary & Anr. Vs Prema Kuer & Ors. AIR 1964 Patna 187 (V 51 C 52), it was held that u/sec. 35, an entry in any public or other official register stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by public servant in the discharge of his duties becomes a relevant fact and is provable in the prescribed manner. Entries in Khasra register maintained under an Act are entries in a public and official register and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties and the columns provided in the register are to be filled up in the discharge of official duties of the public servant concerned. Till those entries are proved to be false, they will be good evidence of what is stated thereunder. The present reference is at the stage of evidence of the parties after passing of the judgment and thereafter framing of the issue on the correctness of the assignment deed dt. 12.08.1993. The alleged assignment deed 10 Ex.AW1/DA was no doubt duly registered before the Sub­Registrar office. It is also the admitted fact that Liley, Sudesh and Phirey signed the document Ex.AW1/DA. No evidence has been led so far by the applicants for taking any step either filing of any criminal complaint against the non­applicants after the execution of the assignment deed dt. 12.08.1993. Even, the present application was filed by the applicants on 08.01.2004 in the execution proceedings after the judgment dt. 27.01.1994 was passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court. The question involved at this stage is not about comparison of the signature and thumb impression but the question is whether signatures and thumb impression on the alleged assignment deed were obtained by mis­representation and playing fraud upon the applicants. Moreover, the applicants had an ample opportunity for filing such an application during their evidence but they have not preferred to file such application and concluded their evidence on 22.07.2003, the reasons are best known to them. The non­ applicants have already examined one witness DHW1 and filed the evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Om Prakash, the non­applicant and the matter is at this stage of leading and concluding the evidence by the non­ applicants. If the present application is allowed, it will lead to re­ open the evidence of the applicants allowing the applicants to fill up their lacunas which will affect the rights accrued by the non­ applicants and the evidence of the applicants and the non­applicants will be continuing again and so on. The present case is at the stage of 11 execution proceedings after passing of the judgment and the scope of the execution is very limited. However, the applicants have been given the opportunities to lead their evidence which they have already concluded on the aspect of mis­representation and playing fraud at the time of execution of alleged assignment deed. In view of the above facts, circumstances, evidence already concluded by the applicants and also the aforesaid judgment referred to, the present application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No order to costs.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1