Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing P. Saraswathi Ammal vs Lakshmi Ammal Alias Lakshmi Kantam on 4 March, 1977

Mrs. L.S. Jyothi Priya vs Late Mr. K.L. Saravana on 19 April, 2024

15. The respondent has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Yellawwa's case (supra), the judgment of 16 the Apex Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur9, on the grant of a Decree of Divorce on the irretrievably break down of the marriage is also relied on. The decision of Madras High Court in Saraswathi Ammal v. Lakshmi as well as the decision of Apex Court in Narendra v. K. Meena and the decision of the Madras High Court in P. Lakshmi v. N. Nagarajan have also been relied on.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

____________________________________________________________ vs Ganga Singh & Others on 1 November, 2016

29. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in P. Saraswathi Ammal vs. Lakshmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam, AIR 1978 Madras 361, has held that 'bargain is tainted by undue influence and it is only after particulars are made available and a reasonable proof thereof has been given, the onus would shift on the so called 'person of domination'. Until then the burden is on the complainant to establish it is so. The Court must scrutinize the pleadings and evidence to ascertain undue influence or coercion.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - C B Barowalia - Full Document

Niranjan Reddy vs Mrs.Nukalapathy Sururlatha on 7 March, 2008

The said observation in AIR 1978 Madras 361 (P.Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam) has been based on an earlier decision of the Honourable Apex Court in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 878 (Subhas Chandra Das Mushib - appellant Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and others - respondents), wherein the relevant observation of the Honourable Apex Court relevant for the purpose of this case runs as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A C Adityan - Full Document

Cement Workers Union And Ors. vs Board For Industrial And Financial ... on 8 December, 1999

In P. Saraswathi Ammal v. Lakshmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam, AIR 1978 Mad 361, it was observed that a party cannot approbate and reprobate and compel the court to accept the case after an open exhibition of inconsistency. These principles can be applicable only when it is shown firstly, that there is an inconsistency and secondly, that the party has taken benefit while approbating or reprobating. The rehabilitation scheme could be enforced only when the State Government or the financial institutions infuse their funds in the scheme. The State Government never agreed to provide financial assistance in revival of the scheme. The mere fact that the appeal was filed taking a certain ground did not oblige the State Government to infuse the fund in carrying out the scheme submitted by the operating agency or the Corporation and support the version of the petitioners.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sabita Behera vs Prafulla Kumar Das And Ors. on 27 November, 1996

9. So far as various High Courts of the country are concerned, the views are divergent as to whether the application of wife for substitution of Segal heir is maintainable where the husband dies. While Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts have taken the view that it is maintainable, the Madras High Court has taken the contrary view. While the Madras and Calcutta High Courts have taken the view in Saraswathi Ammal v. Lakshmi : AIR 1989 Madras .
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Maniammal Alias Rajambal vs Mangalakshmy And Ors. on 10 July, 1985

Therefore, it is not correct to state that by reason of her possession, or entitlement to possession, it became enlarged into an absolute possession. It is somewhat strange that no suit notice was ever issued prior to the filing of the suit. It is for the plaintiff to establish her case by positive evidence. She cannot pick up any loopholes in the defendants' case and claim rebuttal as laid down in Jagdish Narain v. Ahmed Khan (1946) 2 M.L.J. 98 : 59 L.W. 268 : A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 59; Kandasamy Udayar v. Karuppudayar (1969) 2 M.L.J. 222; and P.Saraswathi v. Lakshmi .
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

G. Subashini And Anr. vs P. Lakshmi Bai on 20 January, 1987

In all those cases, the plea was fraud, undue influence and coercion. It is not necessary to refer to the aforesaid decisions in detail in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case which I will set out below. Learned Counsel for the appellants also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Saraswathi v. Lakshmi , which lays down that the burden is heavily, upon the complainant to establish that a transaction is tainted by undue influence and that it is unconscionable,. Bat, in that case itself, the Bench has taken care to issue a note of caution that the standards of proof regarding undue influence or coercion may be slightly different in cases where a person suffers from infirmity or backwardness. The Bench has also observed that each case has to depend on its own facts.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next