Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.94 seconds)
Documents citing Sirmul vs Smt. Annapurna Devi on 23 February, 2000

Shaik Mastan And Ors. vs Karempudi Dharma Rao And Ors. on 27 March, 2006

28. The ratio in Malamma's case (supra), Ramjanam Bharthi's case (supra), M.N. Mohammad Mirza's case (supra), Sirmul's case (supra), and Lourdu Mari David's case (supra), is that a person who comes to Court with false case is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Since plaintiff did not come to Court with a false case and since it is the defendants that have set up a false case, the above decisions have no application to the facts of the case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Godavari Bai vs Pandit And Ors. on 6 January, 2004

In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed in the case at Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon, AIR 1928 Privy Council 208, Gomathinayagam Pillai and Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR 1967 SC 868, Jugraj Singh and Anr. v. Labh Singh and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 945, Sirmul v. Smt. Annapurna Devi, AIR 2001 MP 10, N.P. Thirugnanam (D) by L.Rs. v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 116.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - S Kemkar - Full Document

Manilal & Ors vs Dhanji Bhai & Anr Judgement Given By: ... on 23 September, 2013

be apparent that the conclusions drawn by the trial Court were correct. The learned senior Advocate read out some portion from the judgment of the trial Court. He explained about the conduct of the plaintiff that he was an infirm person and therefore, after receiving the document, Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2, he had sent his son to inquire the matter and thereafter, he himself visited Betul, to give a legal notice to the defendants No.2 to 4 and to file a civil suit. The reliance is placed by the learned senior Advocate for the respondent No.1 on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of "Sirmul Vs. Smt.Annapurna Devi Ravi Kumar Awasthy", [(2001) (2) M.P.L.J. 339] to show that the plaintiff was dependent on the appellants and therefore, according to the provisions of section 111 of the Evidence Act, burden of proof was on the defendants No.2 to 4 to prove that no fraudulent act has been done by them. It is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Singh Tomar (Dead) vs Dinesh Singh Tomar on 5 February, 2024

16. As per argument of learned counsel for appellant, there is no specific denial by the respondent/defendant No.1 about the facts mentioned in para 8 of the plaint in respect to execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff-appellant after making him consume liquor; therefore, this fact deemed to be proved. However, above argument is not acceptable because at para 8 of the written statement the respondent-defendant No.1 has replied in detail with respect to the facts narrated in plaint para 8 by pleadings that in earlier case bearing Civil Suit No. 91-A/95 the same averments were made and the case has already been decided passing decree in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts narrated in para 8 of the plaint are admitted in view of having not denied. Moreover, the defendant in its written statement has pleaded about the execution proceeding which is pending to execute the judgment and decree passed in civil suit No.91-A/95 and during his cross examination, the plaintiff appellant also admitted at para 5 that he has filed an application in that execution proceedings. Thus, it is evident that plaintiff had knowledge that the plea or ground in respect to execution of sale deed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 2/6/2024 10:41:40 AM 10 SA.NO.579 OF 2009 playing fraud by the respondent- defendant had already been decided by the competent court and the said decree was affirmed until the High Court and he also knew about the execution proceeding of the said judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 91-A/95. The perusal of the exhibit D/3 reveals that written statement was also filed by the appellant-plaintiff in that civil suit No. 91-A/95. All these facts indicate that he is fully aware about the fact about the earlier decree in favour of respondent and that his plea taken in written statement in earlier suit in respect to playing fraud by the respondent has been finally adjudicated and rejected by the competent courts; however, on the basis of same ground which has been finally adjudicated he again filed this suit which is a sheer abuse of process of law. Appellant is participating in the execution proceedings in respect to the same property as per his statement at para 5. In view of the above he is not entitled to get relief of injunction in this case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Yadav - Full Document
1