Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (2.70 seconds)
Documents citing Corporation Of City Of Bangalore vs Zulekha Bi & Ors on 24 March, 2008

Smt. Sushila Devi vs Dinesh Prasad Gupta on 20 December, 2019

22. It was still further held by this Court in the matter of Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi,6 2008 (11) SCC 306 (308) that it is for the plaintiff to prove his title to the property. This ratio can clearly be made applicable to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was a subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share. When the plaintiff himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale deed which he executed in favour of his own son and nephew by selling the property of a minor of whom he claimed to be legal guardian without permission of the court, it was clearly fit to be set aside by 34 First Appeal No. 140 of 2008 the High Court which the High Court as also the courts below have miserably failed to discharge. The onus was clearly on the plaintiff to positively establish his case on the basis of material available and could not have been allowed by the High Court to rely on the weakness or absence of defence of the defendant/appellant herein to discharge such onus.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Shri Ashok Sharma & Anr. vs . Shri Ramesh Kumar Jhunjhunwala on 23 April, 2021

On the point of burden of proof and its onus, as also Section 101 of the Evidence Act, reliance has been placed on Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi & Ors. reported in (2008) 11 SCC 306 and Rangammal vs. Kappuswami & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 SC 2344, and on the responsibility of the first Appellate Court as per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC has relied upon U. Manjunath Rao vs. U. Chandrashekar & Anr. reported in (2017) 15 SCC 309.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H S Thangkhiew - Full Document

Manohar Lal Sharma vs Shri Ravi Sharma on 22 March, 2022

He further argued that onus to prove issue no. 1 upon him was wrongly placed by the trial Court as it was for the plaintiff to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that the trial Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi RCA No. 132/2019 Page No. 19 of 19 Land and Reforms Act. He further argued that since the title of the plaintiff was under cloud, therefore, his suit without seeking declaration was not maintainable. He relied upon the authorities in the cases of; Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Wali Mohammad (Deceased) by LRs v. Ram Surat & Ors. 1989 AIR 2296 SC, Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Zulekha Bi & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306, Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co- op. Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 5483, G. Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560, Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Subhadara v. Surender Singh, 229 (2016) DLT 188.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh And Another vs M/S.Hindustan Supply Agency, ... on 20 April, 2022

35. It was still further held by this Court in the matter of Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi, 2008 that it is for the plaintiff to prove his title to the property. This ratio can clearly be made applicable to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was a subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share. When the plaintiff himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale deed which he executed in favour of his own son and nephew by selling the property of a minor of whom he claEven no witness was examined in his support with regard to supply of material. The Appellate Court has considered imed to be legal guardian without permission of the court, it was clearly fit to be set aside by the High Court which the High Court as also the courts below have miserably failed to discharge.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Khemchand Jain vs Smt. Bharti Moolwani And Ors on 29 April, 2022

35. It was still further held by this Court in the matter of Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi, 2008 that it is for the plaintiff to prove his title to the property. This ratio can clearly be made applicable to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was a subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share. When the plaintiff himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale deed which he executed in favour of his own son and nephew by selling the property of a minor of whom he claEven no witness was examined in his support with regard to supply of material. The Appellate Court has considered imed to be legal guardian without permission of the court, it was clearly fit to be set aside by the High Court which the High Court as also the courts below have miserably failed to discharge.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Sadanand Shukla (Dead) Through Legal ... vs (Deleted) Lakshman Singh Thakur on 14 September, 2022

35. It was still further held by this Court in the matter of Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi, 2008 that it is for the plaintiff to prove his title to the property. This ratio can clearly be made applicable to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was a subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share. When the plaintiff himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale deed which he executed in favour of his own son and nephew by selling the property of a minor of whom he claEven no witness was examined in his support with regard to supply of material. The Appellate Court has considered imed to be legal guardian without permission of the court, it was clearly fit to be set aside by the High Court which the High Court as also the courts below have miserably failed to discharge.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011

22. It was still further held by this Court in the matter of Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi, 2008 (11) SCC 306 (308) that it is for the plaintiff to prove 23 his title to the property. This ratio can clearly be made applicable to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was a subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share. When the plaintiff himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale deed which he executed in favour of his own son and nephew by selling the property of a minor of whom he claimed to be legal guardian without permission of the court, it was clearly fit to be set aside by the High Court which the High Court as also the courts below have miserably failed to discharge. The onus was clearly on the plaintiff to positively establish his case on the basis of material available and could not have been allowed by the High Court to rely on the weakness or absence of defence of the defendant/appellant herein to discharge such onus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 244 - G S Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next