Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)Section 50 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mohabbat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khan on 7 March, 1929
(Vide Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, Gokal Chand v. Parvin
Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, S.P.S.
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC
460, Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v.
Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni, (1996) 7 SCC 681
and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy, (2005) 2 SCC 244)"”
Section 372 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Karedla Parthasaradhi vs Gangula Ramanamma (D) Thr. Lr. And Ors on 4 December, 2014
In (2014) 15 SCC 789 [ Karedla Parthasaradhi Vs. Gangula
Ramanamma (dead) though legal representatives and others], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:-
Madan Mohan Singh & Ors vs Rajni Kant & Anr on 13 August, 2010
In recent time, this Court in Madan
Mohan Singh & Ors. vs. Rajni Kant & Anr.
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan on 13 October, 1993
(Vide Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, Gokal Chand v. Parvin
Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, S.P.S.
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC
460, Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v.
Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni, (1996) 7 SCC 681
and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy, (2005) 2 SCC 244)"”
Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali ... vs Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni And Another on 12 January, 1996
(Vide Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, Gokal Chand v. Parvin
Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, S.P.S.
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC
460, Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v.
Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni, (1996) 7 SCC 681
and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy, (2005) 2 SCC 244)"”
Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors on 28 January, 2005
(Vide Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, Gokal Chand v. Parvin
Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, S.P.S.
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC
460, Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v.
Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni, (1996) 7 SCC 681
and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy, (2005) 2 SCC 244)"”
Seerangamal (Died) And Ors. vs E.B. Venkatsubramanian And Ors. on 29 November, 1985
“22. The other point taken by
defendants is, if the origin was one of
concubinage, it continues to be so for ever, and
that once a concubinage always a concubinage.
It depends upon facts and circumstances 'of
each case. During the lifetime of a wife, an
irresponsible husband may develop incestuous
relationship with another woman, but if he
continues the said relationship after the death of
his wedded wife, and thereafter lives exclusively
26/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2812 of 2017
with the other woman treating her as his wife
and begets children through her; and recognises
them as legitimate children; lives. together as a
family for ever to the knowledge of the general
public and if the documents executed by him
confer1 rights upon them in any of his
properties with unstinted intention of treating
them as wife and children; then, as pointed out
in the decisions above referred to, the evidence
on record must be taken into account
cumulatively to conclude on wifehood. Hence,
for the reasons stated above, the first three
aspects relied upon as if they are destructive
factors, do not in any manner outweigh the
other weighty materials on record in favour of
first plaintiff, and which have been referred to
above.