Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Section 10 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Paras Nath Singh vs Dr. Pratap Narain Singh Vice ... on 28 July, 2014
33. The application of the rule, regarding reversal of burden, governing transactions by pardanashin women was acknowledged to be extended to illiterate and ignorant women by this Court in Paras Nath Rai vs. Tilesar Kunwar, 1965 All.
Ramaswami Jadaya Gounder (Died) And ... vs V.T. Elaiya Pillai And Anr. on 1 November, 1971
This Court, therefore, with utmost respect is not in agreement with the principle in Ramaswami Jadaya Gounder (supra). This is, however, not to say that in a given case, where an ignorant and illiterate man demonstrates by the totality of the circumstances and the transaction that he has entered into, his utter disability to understand the nature of the transaction and the contents of the document, the Court would not be entitled to invoke the rule and reverse the burden. It cannot be, however, applied on a presumption in the same manner as it is done in the case of pardanashin women and certain other illiterate and ignorant women.
Hem Chandra Roy Chaudhury vs Suradhani Debya Chaudhurani on 23 May, 1940
While affirming the principle that the burden is upon the person who seeks to sustain a document executed by a pardahnashin lady that she executed it with a true understanding mind, it has been held that the proof of the fact that it has been explained to her is not the only mode of discharging the said burden, but the fact whether she voluntarily executed the document or not could be ascertained from other evidence and circumstances in the case. The same view was again reiterated by the Judicial Committee, through Sir George Rankin, in Hem Chandra v. Suradhani Debya, AIR 1940 PC 134. Further citation is unnecessary. The legal position has been very well settled. Shortly it may be stated thus: The burden of proof shall always rest upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardahnashin lady to establish that the said document was executed by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. It should be established that it was not only her physical act but also her mental act. The burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and that she understood it, but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial."
Manohar Lal vs Smt. Rajeshwari Devi And Anr. on 31 March, 1976
The extension of the rule to an illiterate widow was acknowledged by this Court in Manohar Lal vs. Rajeshwari Devi and others, AIR 1977 All 36.
Sm. Sonia Parshini vs Sheikh Moula Baksha on 6 July, 1954
In Sm. Sonia Parshini vs. Sheikh Moula Baksha, AIR 1955 Cal 17, Debabrata Mukharjee, J, speaking for the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, posed the following question, opening the judgment:
Chidambaram Pillai And Ors. vs Muthammal And Ors. on 16 October, 1992
Mishra J., speaking for the Division Bench in Chidambaram Pillai (supra) observed:
Tejram vs Patirambhau on 3 April, 1997
Apart from the fact that there were other circumstances in Tejram (supra), that led their Lordships to the conclusion that the transaction was not an agreement to sell, but merely a security for the loan, like the vendee there being a professional money lender, the principles there would otherwise also not apply to this case.