Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 242 (3.87 seconds)
Documents citing Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003

Selvaraj vs V.K.Parasuram (Died) on 29 September, 2023

36. The Apex Court, in the decision reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468 (KRISHNA MOHAN KUL Vs. PRATIMA MAITY), dealing with a similar question as to challenge on the execution of the settlement deed on the ground of undue influence exercised by reason of fiduciary relationship, held as follows: "13. In judging the validity of transactions between persons standing in a confidential relation to each other, it is very material to see whether the person conferring a benefit on the other had competent and independent advice. The age or capacity of the person conferring the benefit and the nature of the benefit are of very great importance in such cases. It is always obligatory for the donee/beneficiary under a 41/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.305 of 2021 document to prove due execution of the document in accordance with law, even dehors the reasonableness or otherwise of the transaction, to avail of the benefit or claim rights under the document irrespective of the fact whether such party is the defendant or plaintiff before the Court. "
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Chand Gupta (Since Died) vs Indravati Gupta (Died And Deleted) on 12 October, 2022

12. Strong reliance has been placed by the High Court in the decision of this Court in Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors., [AIR 2003 SC 4351]. In that case, the question of burden of proof was gone into after the parties had adduced evidence. It was brought on record that the witnesses whose names appeared in the impugned deed and which was said to have been created to grab the property of the plaintiffs were not in existence. The question as regards oblique motive in execution of the deed of settlement was gone into by the Court. The executant was more than 100 years of age at the time of alleged registration of the deed in question. He was paralytic and furthermore his mental and 1 (2006) 5 SCC 558 Page 11 of 18 physical condition was not in order. He was also completely bed-ridden and though his left thumb impression was taken, there was no witness who could substantiate that he had put his thumb impression. It was on the aforementioned facts, this Court opined:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Prakash Babulal Sheth vs Shashikalal Mayur Sheth on 9 December, 2022

15.2 The Apex Court in case of Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and another vs. Pratima Maity and other, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468 also has held Page 50 of 86 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:30:33 IST 2022 C/FA/1076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2022 that when a person in a fiduciary relationship with another is in a position of active confidence, it will be his onus to prove that there is a absence of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence and that the transaction was fair and real and genuine as well. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is thrown upon the dominant party, the party who is in a position of active confidence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Suguna vs Vinod G.Nehemiah on 26 February, 2008

In the light of the decision referred to in paragraph Nos 35 and 36, namely, AIR 1961 Madras 190 (ABDUL MALICK Vs. MD.YOUSUF) as well as (2004) 9 SCC 468 (KRISHNA MOHAN KUL Vs. PRATIMA MAITY) and the findings as to the fiduciary relationship in which the first appellant was placed and the confidence reposed by the deceased in the first appellant and enjoyed by the first appellant taken advantage of by her in exerting influence on the deceased and further having regard to the suspicious circumstances relating to the execution the settlement deed we do not find any support from these decisions to accept the case of the appellants . Consequently the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The M.Ps are also closed.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ramawtaar Goenka vs Rajrang Lohiya And Another on 2 May, 2022

12. Strong reliance has been placed by the High Court in the decision of this Court in Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors., [AIR 2003 SC 4351]. In that case, the question of burden of proof was gone into after the parties had adduced evidence. It was brought on record that the witnesses whose names appeared in the impugned deed and which was said to have been created to grab the property of the plaintiffs 1 (2006) 5 SCC 558 Page 8 of 12 were not in existence. The question as regards oblique motive in execution of the deed of settlement was gone into by the Court. The executant was more than 100 years of age at the time of alleged registration of the deed in question. He was paralytic and furthermore his mental and physical condition was not in order. He was also completely bed-ridden and though his left thumb impression was taken, there was no witness who could substantiate that he had put his thumb impression. It was on the aforementioned facts, this Court opined:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Harcharan Singh Hazooria vs Kulwant Singh Hazooria & Ors on 29 October, 2021

In this context, reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 468. That was a case in which several witnesses were examined to contend that the executant was more than 100 years of age at the time of alleged execution of the deed in question, he was paralytic and his mental and physical conditions were not in order, though his left hand thumb impression was said to have been affixed on the document. There was no witness who could substantiate that he in fact had put his thumb impression. The court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Sh. Vijay ) vs Unknown on 30 January, 2021

47. With all due deference and humility at my command, I find that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity14 case is clearly distinguishable on facts. The civil appeal came before the Apex Court after traversing through the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta set aside the concurrent judgments passed by the trial court and first appellate court.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next