Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Parmeshwari Devi Wife Of Dr. Kulwant Rai ... vs Krishan Chander Son Of Shri Farangi Lal ... on 30 October, 2002
2.2 Further it was stated that as per the report in newspaper Dainik
Jagran, published on 30.05.2008, it can be presumed that Sh. Ram Kumar
was killed by one Dr. Devender Sharma under a conspiracy. It was further
averred that the plaintiff and her entire family have lost all hopes with
respect to the return of Sh. Ram Kumar, who has left behind his wife, Sh.
Pawan Kumar Gehlot (defendant no.3 / eldest son), Sh. Arvind, Sh.
Rajnagar and Sh. Bunty (other sons) as his legal heirs. Defendant no.3 is
stated to be living separately and other sons have been residing with the
appellant / plaintiff. Thus, the suit had been instituted for the relief of
declaration with respect to Sh. Ram Kumar being declared as dead.
2.3 Subsequently, application u/O 6 rule 17 CPC was moved
praying for the impleadment of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi as defendant
no.4 and in the prayer clause sought to be recast, the appellant / plaintiff
RCA - 94/2018 dated 12.09.2022 Chaman Devi Vs. Krishan Pal Ors Page no. 3 of 18
had prayed for the relief to state therein that she was legally entitled to all
the rights as a widow of Sh. Ram Kumar and vide order dated 27.02.2015,
the said amendments were allowed and the notice of the application moved
under Section 80(2) CPC was also issued through publication on State, i.e.
defendant no.4.
Section 107 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Gurdit Singh And Ors. Etc vs Munsha Singh And Ors. Etc on 29 November, 1976
13. The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been
employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or
circumstances which constitute either the infringement or
the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more
comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole
bundle of material facts, which a plaintiff must prove in
order to succeed. These are all those essential facts without
the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (Gurdit
Singh V. Munsha Singh).
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000
Subhash Ramchandra Wadekar vs Union Of India on 18 August, 1992
The aforesaid view was followed by the Bombay High Court in
Subhash Ramchandra Wadekar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993
Bombay 64, in which a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held
that if section 108 of Indian Evidence Act is to be interpreted
literally, it would have to be held that law presumes the death of a
person unheard of for seven years but is silent in respect of the date
of presumed death. It was further held that the date of presumed
death must be proved by the party concerned as a fact by leading
reliable evidence. The Court formulated two propositions viz. (1)
Ordinarily a person unheard of for the statutory period shall be
presumed to be dead on expiry of seven years and not earlier. (2)
Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not exhaustive. It is
permissible for the court to raise a suitable presumption regarding
the date of presumed death depending upon the attendant
circumstances and other reliable material on record. In other words
no rule of universal applicability can be spelt out regarding
presumed date of death. The court indicated that proposition No.1
must operate subject to proposition No. 2.
N.Pankajam vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 30 June, 2006
19. Moreover, in N.Pankajam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu on which
the Central Administrative Tribunal placed reliance, a learned Judge of the
Madras High Court held that by virtue of the presumption under Section
108 of the Evidence Act, a person who is not heard of for 7 years should be
treated as dead, from the date he became untraceable.