Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Balkar Singh vs Bhupinder Kaur on 30 November, 2015 cites

Ganpat vs Ram Devi And Ors. on 13 October, 1977

In view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ganpat vs. Smt. Ram Devi and others 1977, PLR Page I, framing of question of law was having no effect on the maintainability of the PRINCE SAINI 2015.12.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1568 of 2014 6 appeal. However, in view of amendment of Section 100 CPC, framing of substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining regular second appeal in this Court. Prior to amendment, the appeal could have been filed on the ground set out in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 100(1) CPC. Now second appeal requires substantial question of law to be framed. The interference cannot be made only because the order is contrary to law, but when the disputed issues raised a substantial question of law. Limiting such a power in the Appellate Authority is based on public policy having roots in the maxim ''interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

India Electric Works Ltd vs James Mantosh & Anr on 15 September, 1970

[24]. Once permission was accorded by the Civil Court to institute fresh suit the same was a cause of a like nature as contemplated under Section 14 (3) of the Limitation Act. The expression " or other cause of a like nature" contained in Section 14 (3) of the Limitation Act has been answered in the PRINCE SAINI 2015.12.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1568 of 2014 16 judgments of "India Electric Works Limited vs. James Mantosh and another, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2313." [25]. Mutation No.3156 has been challenged. This mutation has been wrongly mentioned, as admittedly mutation No.2847 dated 30.09.1987 and mutation No.2848 dated 30.09.1987 Ex.A5 and Ex. A6 were sanctioned on the basis of sale deeds. The findings were corrected by the Lower Appellate Court under question No.(b). The suit came to be filed on detection of fraud. Civil Suit No.212 dated 09.04.1990 was decided on 07.10.1991 Ex.D3. Said suit was for injunction. At that time factum of sale deeds were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff otherwise, she would not have filed simplicitor suit for injunction, rather would have challenged the sale deeds. Withdrawal of earlier suit coupled with factum of proved fraud make the suit within limitation as the sale deeds based on fraud or the transaction based on fraud can be drawn out at any stage of litigation. [26]. Question No.(c ) as formulated does not arise at all. Due to overwhelming evidence on record, case arrived at irresistible conclusion that it is a case of fraud. Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Statements of DW1 and DW2 have been lawfully analysed for arriving out factum of fraud in execution of sale deeds. Annexures attached to the sale deeds give different connotation, therefore, question No.(d) and (e) cannot be PRINCE SAINI 2015.12.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1568 of 2014 17 entertained. The sale deeds are proved to be nullified as passing of consideration is not proved on record by way of any cogent evidence. Sale without consideration is a nullity. No evidence has come in whose presence the sale consideration was passed over to the plaintiff in the house.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 57 - A N Grover - Full Document
1