Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Sm. Sumitra Devi Agarwalla vs Sm. Sulekha Kundu And Anr. on 24 February, 1976

Jagannath @ Jagamohan Dharua And Ors. vs Prithwiraj Singh Dharua And Ors. on 28 June, 2006

In this regard Mr. Pati relies on the cases of Mangulu Jal and Ors. v. Bhagaban Rai and Ors. ; Sambhu Prasad v. Kailash Chandra Das and Ors. 76 (1993) CLT 517 (FB); Maimun Nisa and Anr. v. Mohammad Khodabin and Ors. ; Hakimatun Nisa Bibi v. Md. Fakiruddin Khan and Ors. 1993 (1) OLR 90; Smt. Tara Bai v. V.S. Krisnaswamy Rao AIR 1985 Karnataka 270 and Smt. Sumitra Devi Agrarwalla v. Smt. Sulekha Kundu and Anr. . Regarding the point of limitation and adverse possession, it is submitted that burden of proving adverse possession was on defendants 1 to 4 and the suit of the plaintiff was based on Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act. So, it was not necessary for him to prove his possession within 12 years, particularly when there is no pleading that the plaintiff and his brothers were dispossessed from the suit land after 1951. It is also submitted by Mr. Pati that the appellant defendants 1 to 4 failed to produce any evidence to establish that they were co-sharers of the Gauntia and as such the possession of the plaintiff or defendants 5 and 6 cannot amount to their possession.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A K Parichha - Full Document

Sushma B. Chandak vs Smc Global Securities Ltd on 9 April, 2019

6. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Narasimha Raju (supra) and of our Court and Calcutta High Court in Misrilal Jalamchand and Sumitra Devi Agarwalla (supra) in support of his case on unlawfulness of the consideration of the deed of settlement on account of public policy. The Pg 5 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:50:11 ::: sg arbp754-16.doc cases of Misrilal Jalamchand and Sumitra Devi Agarwalla are on recording of a compromise in a suit and are quite beside the point.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S C Gupte - Full Document

Maimun Nisa And Anr. vs Mohammad Khodabin And Ors. on 17 July, 1984

6. The question is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the fraud committed by the opposite party can be said to be a fraud practised on the Court Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil P C provides that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by way of a lawful agreement or compromise, the Court shall order such agreement or compromise to be recorded and shall pass a decree in terms thereof. According to this provision the Court has to be satisfied, firstly that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part and secondly that it has been done by a lawful agreement or compromise. The question is whether an agreement or compromise can be said to be lawful if the same has been obtained by practising, fraud upon a party. If it is found that it the same has been obtained by practising fraud upon a party, it cannot be said to be a lawful agreement or compromise. In the present case although there was a talk of compromise between the parties but it is alleged that the petitioners had not consented for the terms of the compromise namely that only 25 decimal of land shall be allotted to share of the two ladies. If, therefore, a petition was filed in the Court by the opposite party bearing the left thumb impressions of the petitioners on the basis of which the Court recorded the compromise and passed the decree, it cannot be said that a fraud was' not practised upon the Court and that a fraud was played only upon the party. A fraud played upon a party may in the facts and circumstances of a particular case amount to a fraud practised upon the Court In the case of Sm. Sumitra Devi Agrawala v. Sm. Sulekha Kundu AIR 1976 Cal 196 it was held that the term of lawful agreement under Order 23 Rule 3 does not include within it an agreement which is vitiated by fraud, undue influence or coercion. In other words, it excludes such an agreement as also the agreement which, on the face of it, is void. In order to consider whether or not the agreement has been reached between the parties the Court will, of necessity embark upon an enquiry as to the allegations of a party that his consent to an agreement or his signature on the document containing the terms has been obtained by fraud, undue influence or coercion.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar vs R. Sathappan And Ors. on 22 July, 1983

29. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court also has enunciated the principle in a case reported in Sumitra v. Sulekha, that before the Court considers whether or not an agreement is lawful, it must be satisfied that there has been an agreement between the parties and when the consent of one is obtained by the other by some illegal means, viz., by fraud, coercion or under influence, it is difficult to hold that the person whose consent has been so obtained has agreed to the term. The Division Bench has also placed reliance upon the decision of the privy Council reported in seth Kevaldas v.Sakerlal. AIR 1923 PC 178:28 Cal WN 930 which has been referred as follows in the end of paragraph 8 at p.199:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rameshbhai vs Minaxiben on 28 April, 2011

She has, in the context of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while relying the decision in the case of Sm. Sumitra Devi Agarwalla [supra], submitted that the term 'lawful agreement' in Order 23 Rule 3 does not include within it an agreement which is vitiated by fraud, undue influence or coercion. It excludes such an agreement as also an agreement which on the face of it is void.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Sushma B. Chandak vs Smc Global Securities Ltd on 9 April, 2019

6. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Narasimha Raju (supra) and of our Court and Calcutta High Court in Misrilal Jalamchand and Sumitra Devi Agarwalla (supra) in support of his case on unlawfulness of the consideration of the deed of settlement on account of public policy. The Pg 5 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:50:04 ::: sg arbp754-16.doc cases of Misrilal Jalamchand and Sumitra Devi Agarwalla are on recording of a compromise in a suit and are quite beside the point.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S C Gupte - Full Document
1   2 Next