Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Shanti Devi vs Bimla Devi on 31 August, 1988

Shanti Devi vs Bimla Devi on 8 October, 2025

15. It is further stated that the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit property as she was never adopted by Shri Badri Prasad, who was the actual owner of the CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -6- suit property. After the death of the said Shri Badri Prasad, no right, title or interest pertaining to his property can devolve upon the plaintiff as she was neither the biological daughter nor the adopted daughter of Shri Badri Prasad. As no actual giving and receiving in adoption pertaining to the plaintiff has ever been taken place, therefore, the plaintiff cannot even claim herself to be the adopted daughter of Shri Badri Prasad.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Milkha Singh And Ors. vs Nirmal Singh And Ors. on 11 September, 2007

It is no doubt true that the landlords did not contend either before the first appellate Court or before the High Court that the appeal against the consent decree was not maintainable. This contention is urged for the first time in this Court. This contention relates to jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and is evident from the record. Such a plea does not require any evidence. Further, being a contention relating to the jurisdiction of the appellate Court, it does not require any 'pleadings'. Though this Court will not normally permit a new plea to be raised at the hearing of the special leave petition or an appeal under Article 136, where such plea does not involve any question of fact or amendment of pleading and is purely one of law, particularly relating to jurisdiction of the appellate Court, it cannot be entertained by this Court. See: Shanti Devi v. Bimla Devi and Zahoor v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 41.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. Lr.Smt. ... vs Rajinder Singh & Ors on 11 July, 2006

10. It is no doubt true that the landlords did not contend either before the first appellate court or before the High Court that the appeal against the consent decree was not maintainable. This contention is urged for the first time in this Court. The contention relates to jurisdiction of the appellate court and is evident from the record. Such a plea does not require any evidence. Further, being a contention relating to the jurisdiction of the appellate court, it does not require any 'pleading'. Though this Court will not normally permit a new plea to be raised at the hearing of the special leave petition or an appeal under Article 136, where such plea does not involve any question of fact or amendment of pleading and is purely one of law, particularly relating to jurisdiction of the appellate court, it can be entertained by this Court. (See Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi - AIR 1988 SC 2141 and Zahoor vs. State of U.P - AIR 1991 SC 41).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 224 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

M/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010

10. It is no doubt true that tl'ie"a. landlords did not contend either before'-«.V the first appellate court or befc--;re*«ti1.e_" 5 ;_ High Court that the appeal aga-insttth'e"l consent decree was not maintin_ab1e.. This contention is urged for .t1fi'e">j'3.rSt'.:V.' time in this Court, 'contention relates to jurisdiction of the appe,1lat"e_"'~ it court and is evident 'front thee'.;.jr§:co_rd._V§ Such a plea does notr..re'.qui,reV"; evidence. F'urther«,._ being a' contention relating V to the' ju1'i.sdiction "of" the appellate '-CT;)ur't, d'o_evsA'not requirek any 'pleadingi ThoVughV'-thi.Vs';Court will not;.norrn.fil--y. pernjiit_ a"ne"W{'p1ea to be r.a1sed-- at the...'he.aii*ir_igV_of' the special .;_petitio~n or :1' an V "appeal under ' A_rticl"e'=.1 'such plea does not "'~i.n'x*o11yeV " question .arnen3§irnerit.&"of pleading and is purely Q one"-.o'fi _l'aw',*--._ particularly relating to ~ jurisdictiCon&i"'ofV~" the appellate court, it of fact or ican"be'.ente_rtained by this Court (See Shanti Devi v. Bimla Devi -- AIR 1988 SC=£Zy1_-4l_and Zahoor VS. State of UP. -- ._AIR 1991 sc 40}.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Devi vs Smt. Bina Devi on 27 April, 2017

(This judgment contains eleven pages and each page bears my signature.) E No. 5505/16                             Shanti Devi Vs. Bina Devi                                        12      12 E. NO. 5505/16 Shanti Devi Vs. Bina Devi 27.04.2017 Present: None  Vide separate order of even date, the leave to defend is dismissed and the petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is allowed. The   respondent   is   directed   to   vacate   the   tenanted   premises   i.e.   two   rooms   in property bearing no. B­4/280­C, Lawrence Road, New Delhi as shown in site plan in red colour.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Sarup vs Bharpai on 8 December, 2025

Court. Even otherwise, in terms of enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid reproduced judgment of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (supra), it has been clearly held that when the contention relates to the jurisdiction and evidence from the record, such a plea does not require any evidence and can therefore, be raised at any stage.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1