Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshmi Narain vs Mst. Aparna Devi on 6 January, 1953

Kehar Singh & Ors vs Chanan Singh & Ors on 14 December, 1967

We shall, however, assume in favour of the appellants that Questions 48 and 49 of the Riwaj-i-am relate also to succession of non-ancestral property of the last male holder. Even upon that assumption we are of opinion that the case of the appellants cannot succeed. The reason is that though the entries in the Riwaj-i-am are entitled to an initial presumption in favour of their correctness, the quantum of evidence necessary to rebut this presumption would vary with the facts and circumstances of each parti- cular case. Where, for instance, the Riwaj-i-am laid down a custom in consonance with the general agricultural custom of the State, very strong proof would be required to displace this presumption, but where, on the other hand, this was not the case, and the custom as recorded in the Riwaj-i-am was opposed to the rules generally prevalent, the presumption would be considerably weakened. Likewise, where the Riwaj-i-am affected adversely the rights of females who had no opportunity whatever of appearig before the revenue authorities, the presumption would be weaker still, and very little evidence would suffice to rebut it. In Narain v. Mst. Deoki(l), Roe, J. stated as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah on 14 November, 1972

14. We may now notice some of the leading cases of the Allahabad High Court, which reveal that the view expressed in Sirdarkuar v. Chandrawati, ( 1882 ) ILR 4 All 330 ; Kundan Lal v. Sahu Bhikhari Das, AIR 1929 All 254; Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan, AIR 1931 All 183 ( FB ) and Kunwar Bahadur v. Suraj Baksh, AIR 1932 Oudh 235 ( FB ) is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Full Bench of that Court in Sheo Nath Prasad v. Sarjoo Nonia, AIR 1943 All 220 (FB) which is followed in Lakshmi Narain v. Mt. Aparna Devi, .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 88 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

C.K. Antony vs Mathai M. Paikeday on 20 December, 2003

In Lakshmi Narain's case (supra), the promissory note, which was insufficiently stamped, was executed simultaneously with the advance of the loan and the loan was made on the basis of the promissory note which embodied all the terms of the contract of loan and which promissory note was not R.F.A.Nos.253 & 254/05 -18- admissible in evidence. The Division Bench held that, when a promissory note is not taken in discharge of an oral contract of loan but is taken only by way of conditional payment or collateral security, as it will be presumed to have been so taken unless there is a contract to the contrary, Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872, has no application to the case and the terms of the original contract of loan can be proved if the promissory note is not admissible in evidence or for any other reason cannot be proved. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment read thus;
Kerala High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next