Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (3.49 seconds)

Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt vs Yashram Vasta (Dead) By L.Rs. on 26 February, 1993

In fact, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt v. Yashram Vasta [AIR 1993 SC 1587], the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only if the particular details of persons are made available, the plaintiff can be compelled to bring them in the record. According to us, the learned counsel is well justified in making the said submissions. The sixth respondent in the written statement raised the plea that the deceased Raman had other legal heirs in Ceylon but no details of the persons have been given, except their names. As far as the brother of the plaintiff is concerned, the same has been clarified in the re- examination. Therefore, we reverse the finding made by the court below that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors on 17 May, 2010

20. But we find from the discussion of the facts in Bharatha Matha's case [AIR 2010 SC 2685] that Their Lordships of the Apex Court reversed the finding of the High Court therein, by drawing a presumption, in a similar manner, on the particular facts of the case. Therein, after discussing the evidence, the Apex Court found that, defendant No.1, one Rengammal had been married to Alagarsami Reddiar and, therefore, the presumption of marriage with Muthu Reddiar, who was the deceased brother of the plaintiff in that suit would not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 155 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1