Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.37 seconds)Section 4 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since ... vs H.B.Shivakumar on 26 August, 2015
Moreover, this court
in its order dated 19.01.2008 did not reserve the right to take plea
of limitation, unlike the case of L.C. Hanumanthappa (Supra). The
doctrine of relation back would be applicable and the amended
relief of declaration would not be hit by limitation.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
9.4.12 The aspect of requirement of registration has also
been dealt by the judgment relied by defendant i.e. Kale (supra). It
is admitted position of the plaintiff that the family settlement has
been reduced into writing. The question as whether it was required
to be registered would hinge on the factual inquiry as to whether
the family arrangement has been brought about by the document
Ex. PW-1/7 or if the said exhibit is a mere memorandum prepared
after the family arrangement had already taken place. The terms of
the family arrangement establishes that it falls in the latter category
and hence there was no requirement of registration, the reasons
have been discussed henceforth. The terms of the family
arrangement records that the equal consideration towards the suit
premises has already been paid by the parties, the construction of
the first floor also has been completed by the sole contribution of
the plaintiff and based on these two facts it goes on to record that "
The Limitation Act, 1963
Prakash Rattan Lal vs Mankey Ram on 19 January, 2010
9.3.6 It is argued by the defendant that the deposition of the
plaintiff is neither part of the plaint or amended plaint. Ld. Counsel
for the defendant has relied on the time tested principle that no
evidence beyond pleadings is permissible. The said principle has
been recognised by the Hon'ble Courts of records on numerous
occasion and the defendant has in specific relied upon " Siddik
Mohamed Shah vs. Saran & Ors. AIR 1930 PC 57", "Nand
Kishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported as
(2015) 9 SCC 755 and (2020) 10 SC 729", "Biraji @ Brijraji &
Anr. vs. Surya Pratap & Ors." and "Prakash Rattan Lal vs.
Monkey Ram 166 (2010) DLT 629.
Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008
objected by the defendant are part of the pleadings taken by the
Plaintiff and no paragraph was found to be beyond pleadings. It
appears form the nature of objection taken by the Ld. Counsel for
the defendant that their grievance accrues from the fact that some
of the facts mentioned in the evidence affidavit does not find
mention in the plaint or replication. There is no gainsaying that
evidence affidavit need not be a verbatim copy of the plaint. The
object as observed in Bachhaj Nahar (supra) is to ensure that the
parties are not taken by surprise and each side is aware as to the
questions likely to be raised or considered. If a particular plea is
taken the party cannot be expected to enlist all the evidences in
support of that plea, in the pleadings itself. The same would be
contrary to the fundamental principles of pleading as provided
under Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC. The essence of the rule is to
plead the material facts. As observed above, the defendant was
aware of the fundamental pleas form which the facts have been
averred. Accordingly, the objection of the defendant when tested
on this touchstone falls flat.
Anant Construction (P) Ltd. vs Ram Niwas on 3 October, 1994
9.3.11 On similar lines, defendant had also taken the plea
that the replication sets up a new fact and has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Anant
CS SCJ 1548/18 HARI OM GUPTA Vs. KRISHAN GARG Page 24 of 50
Constructions Ltd. vs Shri Ram Niwas (See: Suit no. 1699/82). No
objection was taken by the defendant regarding the same at time of
filing of replication and has been raised at the stage of final
arguments. Nonetheless, the defendant has failed to show that a
new case has been set up by the plaintiff in his replication. Rather
the facts averred in the replication are in response to the pleadings
made in the written statement, which is within the permissible
limits prescribed by Anant constructions (supra). Thus, there
appears to be no merit in the said submission.