Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)The Partition Act, 1893
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
In Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, this Court has observed that : (SCC p.556, para 24)
"(iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
M. Shanmugha Udayar vs Sivanandam And Others on 18 March, 1993
13. The learned counsel for D1 also would cite the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1993-2-L.W.72 M.SHANMUGHA UDAYAR V. SIVANANDAM AND 8 OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
Lrs.Of Phool Chand vs Gopal Krishan & Ors on 3 December, 2008
"34..........Ordinarily, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of both the parties as they stand at the date of its institution. But this principle is not of universal application. Where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, become inappropriate or that it is necessary, to base the decision of the Court on the later circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties, it is incumbent upon a Court of justice to take notice of events which have happened since the institution of the suit and to mould its decree according to the circumstances as they stand at the time the decree is made. And the Apex Court has laid down in Phool Chand v. Gopal Lal (1967 (2) S.C.R.153) that so far as partition suits are concerned, if an event happens after the preliminary decree and before a final decree is passed, and a change in the shares is necessitated, the trial Court can and should pass a second preliminary decree correcting the shares; and, if there is a dispute in that behalf, the order of the Court deciding that dispute and making a variation in the shares specified in the preliminary decree already passed is a decree in itself which would be liable to appeal. A partition suit is not finally disposed of till the final decree is passed and the Court has jurisdiction to decide all disputes, that may arise due to the death of some of the parties after the preliminary decree and before the passing of the final decree. There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decree in a partition suit, if circumstances justify it and if it is convenient and advantageous to do so. So there cannot be any impediment in passing another preliminary decree correcting the shares in case we find that the 10th defendant also has to be allotted a share in the division of family assets."
Vijay Kumar Talwar vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi on 6 December, 2010
(i) (2011) 1 SCC 673 [Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi], certain excerpts from it would run thus:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Kashmir Singh vs Harnam Singh & Anr on 3 March, 2008
(iii) 2008(4) SCALE 300 KASHMIR SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER.
State Bank Of India & Ors vs S.N. Goyal on 2 May, 2008
(iv) 2009-1-L.W.1 STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. S.N.GOYA:
1