M/S Shakambari Builders Private ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 7 January, 2026
77. It has been held in the case of "Prem Singh & Ors. Vs.
Birbal & Ors" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 at para- 13 to 16 as
follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 971 (0.89 seconds)Documents citing
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
Priyadarshini Educational Society And ... vs Steel Authority Of India And Others on 11 September, 2024
45. Upon appreciation of the decisions, this court holds that although
submissions have been made that IISCO did not have the competence to
enter into the lease agreement with the petitioners, the deed of lease being a
registered document carries with it a presumption of correctness and thus,
must be avoided by the respondents before a proper forum. Such principle
has also been explicitly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Singh
(supra). It is the specific contention of the petitioners that even after the
amalgamation of IISCO with SAIL, the expression ISP SAIL was often used in
many official documents to denote SAIL's units. The execution of the deed
by IISCO (ISP SAIL) was in accordance with the custom prevailing in the
units of erstwhile IISCO. The IISCO Unit at Kulti was later renamed as SAIL
Growth Works Kulti and in the lease deed, Rajeev Kumar had signed as
General Manager, Indian Iron and Steel Company Kulti Works (SAIL) SGW.
S.Keerthana vs V.Vijayalakshmi on 22 February, 2021
MANU/SC/8139/2006 in the case of Prem Singh and Ors Vs. Birbal
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
.CRP.No.890 of 2021.
S.Keerthana vs V.Vijayalakshmi on 22 February, 2021
Petitioner in AIR 2006 SC 3608: MANU/SC/8139/2006 in the case of
Prem Singh and Ors Vs. Birbal and Ors, and in the light of the 2022
SCC Online SC 1128 in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of
India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another on the points in
para 5,7 and 9, the Petition is allowed.
Harjit Singh vs Puran Chandra Putrty Son Of Arjun Purty on 6 May, 2026
In Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, (2021) 15 SCC 300, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the disputed documents
are registered, while examining as to upon whom the onus of proof
would lie, the courts would be guided by the settled legal principle
that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as
held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal (supra). The Hon'ble
Supreme court held that in view of aforesaid proposition, the initial
onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the registered
document.
Inderjeet Singh vs Abdul Majid (Dead) Through Lrs on 28 March, 2017
18. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that if a
document is a registered one, then it could be presumed that it was validly
executed, in view of the principles laid down in Bellachi (dead) by Lrs vs.
Pakeeran, Prem Singh and Others vs. Birbal and Others (supra). However,
the said presumption is a rebuttal one and here in the instant case the said
presumption has not only been rebutted as the executor Mahmood Ali himself
has denied his signature specifically but the plaintiff has failed completely to
prove the genuineness of the said document (Ex.P.1) by examining any of its
witnesses. Presumptive value of the registration of the alleged sale (Ex.P.1) is
thus rebutted and the principles laid in these decisions would not be applied in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, and therefore, mere registration
of the alleged sale would not confer any right or interest upon the plaintiff.
Sobha Devi vs (A) Santosh Poddar on 2 April, 2025
In the judgment passed in the case of "Prem Singh Vs. Birbal"
S.Shanmuga Sundaram vs S.Mohan on 17 November, 2022
In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in 2006 (5) SCC 353 (Prem Singh Vs. Birbal) which has been extracted in
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 2 SCC 727 is applicable to the
facts of the present case.
Sandeep Soni vs Smt. Chandra Kanta Vyas on 17 June, 2025
He also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Prem Singh and
others v. Birbal and others 2007(1) MPLJ 1, in which, the Supreme
7
M.A.Nos.9049/2024 & 9050/2024
Court in respect of filing a suit of cancellation of a document and that is
governed with Article 59 of the Limitation Act sought cancellation on the
ground of fraud and mistake, observed that when said document can be
ordered to be cancelled.
Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Ghosh vs Shanti Ghosh on 1 May, 2026
44. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the gift deeds
as well as the relinquishment deed were void-ab-initio / null and void
and did not pass any right, title and interest to the defendant nos. 1 to 4
and accordingly the challenge to the gift deeds as well as the
relinquishment deed as void ab initio was only consequential to the
main relief of partition and the suit cannot be said to be barred by
limitation when seen in the light of the judgement passed in the case
of Prem Singh (supra) and the judgment passed in the case of Shanti
Devi (supra) and the judgement passed in the case of Sukhbiri Devi
(supra) does not help the appellants (defendant no. 1 to 4 ) in any
manner.