Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Manmohan Singh & Others vs Kewal Krishan & Others on 14 November, 2013 cites

Prem Singh vs Mangu Ram on 11 March, 2004

Further no benefit of sale deeds executed by Manmohan Singh to the sons of respondent No.1 can be given to the appellants because the land sold by Manmohan Singh earlier to the respondent No.1 or his children has much front. Further if the agreement to sell is proved on the file, it can not be thrown away on the ground of inadequacy of consideration. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of learned counsel for appellants that price of suit property is inadequate. Further it was not proved on the file that agreement to sell was executed to secure the payment of loan transaction. The agreement to sell and receipts are fully proved on the file. Therefore, the authorities titled as Prem Singh Vs. Mangu Ram (Supra) and Lalithambika Vs. M.O. Varghese_(Supra) are not applicable to the facts of present case and are quite distinguishable. The plaintiff has proved the execution of the agreement to sell on the file. The plaintiff has discharged the onus placed upon him. The defendants took the plea that the agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document but they have failed to prove the fraud.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008

Therefore, the authority titled as Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Anr. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of present case and is quite Kumar Ashwani 2013.11.20 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3283 of 2013 22 distinguishable. The alleged story of Charanjeev Kaur that receipt executed by her and her father as executed by force is devoid of merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 260 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs Vijay Krishna Mishra on 17 December, 2008

The authority titled as Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is quite distinguishable as the possession was not delivered. I find no force in the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the suit is a valuable piece of land. It is worth crores of rupees and no sane person can think of selling the suit property at five lac rupees per acre. Manmohan Singh has stated in his cross-examination that the land in dispute is less front.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 297 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Badri Ram vs Prithvi Raj on 1 February, 2002

I find no force in this contention that there was a recital in the agreement to sell that the possession was delivered. Kewal Krishan has specifically stated the possession was not delivered to him. The agreement to sell can not be thrown only on this ground that there was a recital in the agreement to sell that the possession was delivered but the possession was not delivered. I am supported on this point by case titled as Badri Ram Vs. Prithvi Raj reported in 2003(1) Latest Judicial Reports page 760 in support of this contention. Further, I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the agreement to sell required registration as the Kumar Ashwani 2013.11.20 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3283 of 2013 21 possession was not delivered.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - P C Tatia - Full Document
1   2 Next