Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Shrimati And Ors. vs Sudhakar R. Bhatkar And Ors. on 4 March, 1997

Kolleri Constructions, Hyd. vs Nectar Laboratories, Ltd., Hyd. on 18 August, 1998

In the case of Shrimati (supra), the plaintiff was an illiterate widow and the defendant was staying as a tenant in a part of her house and had treated her as his mother. He had pursuaded her to gift her entire property. On assessment of the evidence, it was found that the plaintiff was not in a position to dominate her will and the gift deed could not be said to have been executed under his undue influence.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sri Ashok Kumar vs Sri Anand Bhandari on 28 September, 2021

36. Moreover the very condition in Ex.P8 that it was executed for a period of 99 years on such a meager lease amount and rental amount itself is not reposing any confidence in the mind of this Court to believe that the parties had really intended to act upon it. The same principles are reiterated in the second decision cited by the plaintiffs' counsel reported in Shrimati and others v/s Sudhakar R. Bhatkar and others in AIR 1998 42 O.S.No.6068/2012 BOMBAY 122 which would also aptly apply to the facts on hand.
Bangalore District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.Devarajan vs C.Venkata Swamy on 2 November, 2022

(23) The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shrimati and Others Vs. Sudhakar R.Bhatkar and Others, reported in AIR 1988 Bom 122, it is seen that the Court has specifically pointed out that when the transaction appears to be unconscionable, the burden of proving otherwise is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 AS.No.33/2012 on the beneficiary of transaction. All the three judgments are distinguishable on facts. In this case, there is specific pleading that the plaintiff an utter stranger to the family, gained acquaintance with the settlor and it is admitted by the 1st defendant that he was helping the settlor in domestic needs. When the settlement is an unnatural disposition, the burden lies on the 1st defendant/appellant and he has failed to discharge his burden as found by this Court.. (24) The term 'undue influence' is defined under Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 16 reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document
1