Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Ramkrishna Singh vs Mahadei Haluai And Anr. on 30 January, 1965
In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Balchmd Mahton v. Bulaki Singh A.I.R. 1929 Patna 284; Ramkrishna Singh v. Mahadei Haluai and Anr. I.L.R. (Vol.
Basruddin Khan And Anr. vs Gurudarshan Das And Ors. on 23 May, 1969
44) patna 1965, page 596. and Basruddin Khan and Anr. v. Gurudarshan Das and Ors. 16 Vesey, Jun. 249 in which the principle of constructive notice has been applied for giving relief to the plaintiff. The principle of constructive notice is incorporated in Illustration II of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as follows:
Hari Charan Kuar And Ors. vs Kaula Rai And Ors. on 29 March, 1917
The limits up to which this doctrine can be extended has been explained in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Charon Kuar v. Kaula Rai 1917 Patna Law Journal Vol. 2, page 513 in which the following observation has been made:
Ramchander Singh vs Bibi Asghari Begam And Anr. on 30 November, 1955
...It is doubtless well settled that to defeat a suit for specific performance of contract the burden initially lies on the subsequent purchaser to prove want of notice. But, as pointed out in Ramchander Singh v. Bibi Asghari Begam and another this burden is somewhat light, and even a mere denial may suffice. Moreover, when both parties have given evidence, the question is ultimately one of appreciating the evidence, and any discussion about burden of proof becomes somewhat academic.
Rameshwar Singh vs Hari Narayan Singh And Ors. on 14 February, 1984
This very principle has been followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Rameshwar Singh v. Hari Narayan Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1984 Patna 277 where Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. has summarised the law in this regard by stating as follows:
Kesharmull Agarwala vs Rajendra Prasad And Ors. on 2 May, 1967
35. This view has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kesharmuli Agarwala v. Rajendra Prasad and Ors. 1968 B.L.J.R. 28. In this case it was observed as follows:
1