Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Harihar Prasad Singh And Another vs Must. Of Munshi Nath Prasadand Others on 16 January, 1956

Ramaji Batanji vs Manohar Chintaman And Ors. on 20 November, 1959

11. A judgment in another suit winch is not Inter partes may be evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act for certain purposes, namely to prove the fact of the judgment; to show who the parties to the suit were; to show what was the subject-matter of the suit; to show what was decided or declared by the judgment; to show what documents had been filed by the parties in the proceedings; to establish the transaction referred to in the judgment; as evidence to show the conduct of the parties or particular instances of the exercise of a right or assertion of title (vide Harihar Prasad Singh v. Must. of Munshi Narh Prasad, 1956 SCR 1 at p. 6: ((S) AIR 1956 SC 305 at p. 309))or to identity property; or to show how properly had been previously dealt with; to establish a particular transaction in which a right is asserted and the name of the person, if any, who is declared in the judgment as entitled to possession; but the judgment is not evidence to establish the truth of the matters decided in that judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Gulabrao Maruti Bhagat vs Bhagwan Nana Bhagat on 8 December, 2000

"(11) A judgment in another suit which is not inter partes may be evidence under section 13 of the Evidence Act for certain purposes, namely to prove the fact of the judgment; to show who the parties to the suit were; to show what was the subject matter of the suit; to show what was decided or declared by the judgment; to show what documents had been filed by the parties in the proceedings; to establish the transaction referred to in the judgment; as evidence to show the conduct of the parties or particular instances of the exercise of a right or assertion of title Vide Harihar Prasad Singh v. Must. of Munshi Nath Prasad, 1956 S.C.R. 1 at p. 6: (S) A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 305 at p. 309 or to identify property; or to show how property had been previously dealt with; to establish a particular transaction in which a right is asserted and the name of the person, if any, who is declared in the judgment as entitled to possession; but the judgment is not evidence to establish the truth of the matters decided in that judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Sara Rauf And Joe Shera Rauf vs Durgashankar Ganeshlal Shroff (Since ... on 13 March, 2007

11. A judgment in another suit which is not inter partes may be evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act for certain purposes, namely to prove the fact of the judgment; to show who the parties to the suit were; to show what was the subject matter of the suit; to show what was decided or declared by the judgment; to show what documents had been filed by Page 0769 the parties in the proceedings; to establish the transaction referred to in the judgment; as evidence to show the conduct of the parties or particular instances of the exercise of a right or assertion of title (vide Harihar Prasad Singh v. Must. of Munshi Nath Prasad), 1956 S.C.R. 1 at p.6 : (S) A.I.R. 1956 S.C.305 at p.309 or to identify property; or to show how property had been previously dealt with; to establish a particular transaction in which a right is asserted and the name of the person, if any, who is declared in the judgment as entitled to possession; but the judgment is not evidence to establish the truth of the matters decided in that judgment. The findings of fact arrived at on the evidence in one case are not evidence of that fact in another case. The reasons upon which a judgment is founded cannot be regarded as, nor can any finding of fact there come to other than the transaction itself be, relevant in another case.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

S.A. Kuppammal vs Parthasarathy @ Govindaswamy (Died) ... on 5 April, 1991

A judgment in another suit which is not inter partes may be evidence for certain purposes, namely, to prove the fact of the judgment; to show who the parties to the suit were; to show what was the subject-matter of the suit; to show what was decided or declared by the judgment; to show what documents had been filed by the parties in the proceedings; to establish the transaction referred to in the judgment; as evidence to show the conduct of the parties or particular instances of the exercise of a right or assertion of title vide : Harihar Prasad Singh v. Must. Of Munshi Nath Prasad (1956) S.C.R. 1, 6), or to identify property; or to show how property had been previously dealt with; to establish a particular transaction in which a right is asserted and the name of the person, if any, who is declared in the judgment as entitled to possession; but the judgment is not evidence to establish the truth of the matters decided in that judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - D Raju - Full Document

Prabhu vs Ramdev & Ors on 28 February, 1966

The other decision on which Mr. Misra relies is Harihar Prasad Singh &Another v. Must. of Munshi Nath Prasad & Others. (1) In that case it was held that the persons inducted by mortgagees could be raiyats within the meaning of s. 5(3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act so as to acquire any rights of occupancy under S. 21 of the said Act. This conclusion, however, flows from the basic fact that the mortgagees who inducted the tenants into the land were neither proprietors nor tenure holders as defined by the said Act. Section 5(3) of the said Act provides that a person shall not be deemed to be a raiyat unless he holds land either immediately under a proprietor or immediately under a tenure-holder; and so, when tenants claimed the status of a raiyat, in that case it became necessary to consider whether they held the land under a proprietor or under a tenureholder, and since it was clear that the mortgagees were neither proprietors nor tenure-holders, the tenants inducted by them could not claim the benefit of S. 5(3). It would thus be seen that this decision turns inevitably upon the relevant provisions of the Bihar Act and the said provisions show that no statutory benefit had been conferred on the tenants as claimed by them under S. 5(3) of the said Act. This decision therefore does not lay down any general proposition on which Mr. Misra can possibly rely.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Smt. Rukhamanbai vs Shivram & Ors on 3 September, 1981

In the meantime, Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 had been introduced and the tenant claimed protection against eviction under it. This Court after referring to Mahabir Gope and Others v. Harbans Narain Singh and others and Harihar Prasad Singh and Another v. Must. of Manshi Nath Prasad and Others held that rights of the tenants inducted by the mortgagee may 618 conceivably be improved by virtue of statutory provisions which may meanwhile come into operation. Such a case would clearly be an exception to the general rule prescribed by the Transfer of Property Act that mortgagee in course of management cannot create an interest which would endure beyond the redemption of mortgage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next