Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 412 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011

Pushpa vs Chandran on 20 July, 2012

12. Learned counsel would also submit in his argument that the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex court reported in 2011 (3) LW 48 (Rangammal v. Kuppuswami & anr.) is not applicable to the present case since possession was already handed over to the plaintiff. He would also submit that the second defendant could not be in possession of the property since the first defendant is alive still and therefore, the principles laid down in the said judgment, cannot be relevant or applied in this case. He would bring it to the notice of the Court that possession had been handed over as mentioned in Ex.A2 sale deed and therefore, the case of the second defendant that she is in possession through out cannot be considered as true. He would also submit that the documents produced in Exs.B2 and B3 are purely after the suit and therefore, it cannot be relied upon. He would also submit that the second defendant had encroached the property in the year 1994 and therefore, the notice has been sent by the plaintiff to hand over possession but it was neither handed over nor replied. He would also submit that the plaintiff has therefore, asked for possession as it was encroached by the second defendant. He would submit in his argument that the second defendant ought to have proved that the sale transaction Ex.A2 was a void one by resorting to Court and it was not done by her. Therefore, it has become a valid document and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as sought for by him.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Lajwanti vs Edmc on 17 September, 2024

In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and Anr, (2011) 12 SCC 220, wherein it was held that the party who alleged the sale deed to be not genuine, sham or bogus has to prove nothing until the party relying upon the document established its genuineness. However, in the present case, the defendant no. 2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte and the defence of defendant no. 1, 4 and 5 was struck off. Therefore, none of the party alleged that the ownership documents placed on record by the plaintiff are not genuine, sham or bogus. PW3 during his cross-examination deposed that he cannot tell whether Sh. Yashpal was alive on 19.05.2005 or not. This does not mean that PW3 had deposed that Sh. Yashpal was dead on 19.05.2005. PW2 and PW3 were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 4 and 5 but nothing came out which can disprove the case of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the PW3 has placed on record the sale deed Ex. PW3/1 (OSR) dated 19.05.2005 in favour of Smt. Lajwanti to show that she is the owner of the suit property. PW2 has brought the record of Khautoni and Khasra girdawari in respect of suit property in which the name of Smt.Lajwanti is registered as khatedar and bhumidaar respectively, which corroborates the sale deed Ex. PW3/1 (OSR). The fact that PW3 does not have proper knowledge about the documents does not means that the documents placed on record by him got unproved. The documentary evidence had to be contradicted by the documentary evidence. No document to contradict the document of the plaintiff has been placed on record by the defendant no. 4 and 5 as their defence have been struck off and defendant no. 4 and 5 had never moved any application to get the order strucking off their defence to be recalled or to get it set aside. Moreover, the suit filed by the husband of defendant no. 4 and father of defendant no. 5 of permanent injunction on the basis of ownership had been dismissed and the order of dismissal is upheld till Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, therefore, the said order would operate as Res-judicata on the claim of the husband of ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 371/2018 LAJWANTI Vs. EDMC AND ORS. Page No. 8 of 11 CNR No. DLSH03-000716-2018 defendant no. 4 and father of defendant no. 5 and their successor-in-interest as the owner of the suit property. Consequently, the defendant no. 4 and 5 have no right to interfere or to create any hindrance in the construction of boundary wall by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surender Gaur vs Praveen Kumar on 28 September, 2019

34. Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party - See Rangammal v. Kuppuwami.6
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs Surinder Kumar on 2 December, 2025

Vs. Shankarlal G. Khandelwal (dead) by LRS, (2005) 12 SCC 131; Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh & Anr., 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 688; T.K. Lathika VS. Seth Karsandas Jamnadas, 1992(2) RCR (Rent) 233; The State of Rajasthan Vs. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh (dead) by his legal representatives, 1972(4) SCC 165; Ram Niwas Gupta VS. Mumtaz Hasan & Ors., JT 2002(2) SC 384; Surinder Mohan Vs. M/s Deep Kumar & Co. & others, 1989 Civil Court Cases 309 (P&H); Y.R. Mahadev Vs. K. Dayalan, 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 294 (Karnataka); Smt. Mamata Ghosh & Anr. Vs. 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:55:49 ::: RSA-2138-2013 (O&M) -10- Tapas Kumar Ghosh, 2012(2) Civil Court Cases 300 (Calcutta) Calcutta High Court; Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet Vs. Noor Ahmed Sheriff & Ors., 2011(3) Civil Court Cases 673 (S.C.); Rachhpal Singh son of Gurdial Vs. Swaran Kaur and others, 2009(2) HLR; Richhpal Singh Vs. Sandhura Singh, 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 242 (P&H); Sir Mohammed Yusuf and another Vs. D and another, AIR 1968 Bombay 112 (V 55 C 20); Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs.Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1162; Smt. T.S. Ratna Vs. Sri S. Subramanyam and others, 2012(2) ICC; H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, 1959 SIR Supreme Court 443; Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and another, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 251 and Subhash Chander and others Vs. M/s Active Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 62 cited by learned counsel for the appellant are no help to the appellant's case. In the facts and circumstances of present case, relief of specific performance is just and appropriate relief, which could have been granted by the courts below in the facts and circumstances of case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Kathirvel vs D.Arumugasamy

28. The learned counsel for the Appellant would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and another reported in (2011) 12 SCC 220, regarding burden of proof. The learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend that the burden of proof was only on the plaintiffs to establish that the power of attorney was forged as claimed by them and the Courts below had erroneously shifted the burden on the defendants and proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next