Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.51 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005
In the aforesaid context the case law of Rajeshwari v. Puran Indoria 2005 (4) AWC 3869 (SC) : JT 2005 (7) SC 630, is relevant to mention, in which the Apex Court in following two paragraphs has suggested for restoration of position in Section 100, C.P.C. prior to 1976 amendment and has observed that there are instances when the first appellate court merely, mechanically, confirmed the findings of fact rendered by the trial court without an independent reappraisal of the pleadings and the evidence in the case. There are occasions when the High Court feels constraint of Section 100, C.P.C. and declines to interfere though such interference is proper to render justice between the parties. In the present case, it is not only a matter of mechanical confirmation of the finding of fact by the appellate court but it is a definite case of carving out a case which is nowhere inferable either from the deed or the pleadings of parties. Thus, it is a judgment of reversal given by lower appellate court without properly justifying the dismissal of the reasons given by the trial court in its Judgment. The paragraphs 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment are as below:
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Daya Shankar vs Smt. Bachi And Ors. on 4 January, 1980
In such cases a Division Bench of this Court in Daya Shankar v. Smt. Bachi and Ors. , has held that the burden to prove the genuineness of the deed lies on dominating party and not on a person challenging it. In this context the following paragraphs of the decision of Daya Shankar (supra) is quite remarkable and is quoted as below:
Smt. Mania vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, U.P. ... on 5 August, 1970
15. As I have discussed above that the lower appellate court has taken up a case of Section 25(1) of Contract Act, which has not been specifically pleaded in the written statement and thus has given the benefit of the same to the defendant respondent for reversing the findings of the trial court and dismissing the plaintiffs suit. Besides, that the lower appellate court has also not, as discussed above, considered the reasonings given in the judgment of the trial court for holding the questioned sale being a resultant fraud and misrepresentation and has straightway given a finding that the defendant proved the questioned deed as a valid piece of agreement. The reasonings and findings recorded by the lower appellate court cannot be Justified by the case law of Smt. Mania (supra).
Ningawwa vs Byrappa & 3 Ors on 17 January, 1968
19. Learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant while relying upon the case law of Ningawwa v. Byrappa , has further raised a point that in the present case if the contentions of the plaint are to be taken on its face value, the transaction should be treated as void and no decree for its cancellation as sought by the appellant/plaintiff is required to be passed. He has tried to demonstrate from the pleadings in the plaint that the deed in question has been obtained by making fraudulent representation as to its character and the fraud allegedly committed by the respondent defendant is not a misrepresentation as to the contents of the document and thus emphasised that in the present case the suit was not at all maintainable. The case, as has been taken by the plaintiffs regarding questioned deed, is that of void deed and such suit is not maintainable in the civil court.
Dharam Pal Son Of Akash Deen Yadav, Raj ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Jagar Nath Son ... on 4 January, 2006
Learned Counsel has further relied upon the case law of Ram Roop v. Smt. Budhiya 1979 RD 212 and Indra Pal v. Jagan Nath 1992 (2) AWC 1118 : 1992 RD 231, in same context.