Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
5. It is settled law that pleadings of parties have to be read meaningfully
and not pedantically. Pleadings of parties have to be clear and not blurred,
slurred or contrived. As was observed by the Supreme Court in the decision
reported as 2011 (6) SCALE 677 Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmal Devi
(para 52) the pleadings are the foundation of a claim by a party and it is the
bounden duty of the parties to lay their claim precisely and it is the duty of
the Court to carefully scrutinize the pleadings as also the documents on
which the pleadings are predicated.
Shri D.M.Deshpande & Ors vs Shri Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (Dead) ... on 12 November, 1998
31. The plea in the written statement is that in the year 1994-95,
overwhelmed by the selfless dedication and devotion of the defendants Sant
Baba Nagpal Ji out of natural love and affection orally gave ownership (and
we understand it to mean possession) for life to the defendants of such
portion of Maatangi Bhavan Complex which is in their possession. When
i.e. on what date was this done by Sant Baba Nagpal Ji? Nothing has been
stated. The decision of the Supreme Court in D.M.Deshpandey's case
RFA(OS) 62/2014, RFA(OS) 63/2014, RFA(OS) 64/2014 & RFA(OS) 65/2014 Page 18 of 20
(supra) which affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Nilesh
Consturction Co.'s case (supra) would be clearly attracted : as in Nilesh
Construction Co's case a plea of tenancy without disclosing the day when
the tenancy was created and the exact nature thereof was held to be an
insufficient pleading to constitute a defence to protect the possession as a
tenant, similar would be the position in the instant case.
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Owners & Parties Vessel MV Fortune Express the Supreme Court
highlighted requirement to read pleadings meaningfully keeping in view the
relied upon documents and see whether the pleading is meaningful; not
illusory or vexatious. Illusory or vexatious pleadings would be no pleadings
to challenge a material proposition of fact or law affirmed by one party.
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 84 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1