Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (1.79 seconds)Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
36. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3
SCC 179, this Court observed :
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bhimashya And Ors vs Smt. Janabi @ Janawwa on 11 December, 2006
In Bhimashya & Ors. v. Smt. Janabi @ Janawwa, (2006) 13 SCC 627,
this Court held:
Ram Kanya Bai & Anr vs Jagdish & Ors on 4 July, 2011
xx xx xx xx
Custom is authoritative, it stands in the place of law, and
regulates the conduct of men in the most important concerns of
life; fashion is arbitrary and capricious, it decides in matters
of trifling import; manners are rational, they are the
expressions of moral feelings. Customs have more force in a
simple state of society. Both practice and custom are general or
particular but the former is absolute, the latter relative; a
practice may be adopted by a number of persons without reference
to each other; but a custom is always followed either by
limitation or prescription; the practice of gaming has always
been followed by the vicious part of society, but it is to be
hoped for the honour of man that it will never become a custom.”
(See also: Ram Kanya Bai & Anr. v. Jagdish & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 3258).
Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya And Others on 26 March, 1959
13. Adoption is made to ensure spiritual benefit for a man after his
death. The primary object of adoption was to gratify ancestors' by
means of annual offerings, and therefore it was considered necessary
that the offerer, must as far as possible be a reflection of the real
descendant, and must look as much like a real son as possible, and
must certainly not be one, who could never have been a son. Therefore,
the present body of rules has evolved out of a phrase of Saunaka,
which emphasizes that an adopted male, must be 'the reflection of a
son'. (Vide: Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, AIR 1959 SC 781; and
V.T.S. Chandrashekhara Mudaliar (Dead thr. Lrs.)
V. T. S. Chandarasekhara Mudaliar ... vs Kulandaivelu Mudaliar And Others on 26 April, 1962
& Ors.
v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar, AIR 1963 SC 185).
Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Das & Ors vs Bansidhar Mohanty And Ors on 5 May, 1965
17. It has been laid down that it would defy common sense, if a
party to a deed could also attest the same. Thus, a party to an
instrument cannot be a valid attesting witness to the said instrument,
for the reason, that such party cannot attest its own signature.
(Vide: Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Deo & Anr. v. Bansidhar Mohanty &
Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1738).
Delta International Ltd vs Shyam Sunder Ganeriwalla And Anr on 9 April, 1999
In Delta International Limited v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla &
Anr., AIR 1999 SC 2607, this Court held that the intention of the
parties is to be gathered from the document itself. Intention must
primarily be gathered from the meaning of the words used in
the document, except where it is alleged and proved that the document
itself is a camouflage. If the terms of the document are not clear,
the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties have also
to be borne in mind for the purpose of ascertaining the real
relationship between the parties. If a dispute arises between the very
parties to the written instrument, then intention of the parties must
be gathered from the document by reading the same as a whole.
Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 January, 2012
In Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India &
Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 613, while dealing with a similar situation, this
Court held: