Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (3.73 seconds)Dular Pandey And Anr. vs Nanda Budhai And Anr. on 8 March, 1938
In Dular Pandey's case, AIR 1938 All 396 (FB) the point of law which was entertained for the first time in second appeal was based on facts which were held to be proved by the lower appellate court.
Ramlaxmi Ranchhodlal vs The Bank Of Baroda Ltd. on 1 February, 1952
7. Mr. Parakh has however argued that the point raised by him is purely a point of law as it relates to the construction of document Ex. 24 and that it should be allowed to be raised in this court for the first time. He has tried to support his argument by reference to Dular Pandey v. Nanda Budhai, AIR 1938 All 396 (FB); Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subb-anna, AIR 1905 SC 1325, M. E. Moola Sons, Ltd. v. Perin R. Burjorjee, AIR 1932 PC 118 and Ramlaxmi Ranchhodlal v. Bank of Baroda, Ltd., AIR 1953 Bom 50. I have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel but they are based on facts which were quite different.
Madanlal And Ors. vs Durgadutt And Ors. on 30 April, 1957
19. The only other point urged by Mr. Parakh is that based on the view taken in Madanlal v. Durgadutt, 1957 Raj LW 441 = (AIR 1958 Raj 206) that where a plaintiff sues for possession of property which is in the occupation of another and bases his suit on title and also alleges dispossession or discontinuance of possession, the plaintiff will not be entitled to succeed merely by proving title and he must, in addition, prove that he has been in possession of the property within 12 years of the suit. These observations were made with reference to the scope of Art, 142 of the first schedule of the Indian Limitation Act and they are of no avail to the appellants because the two courts below have given adequate reasons for taking the view that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and were dispossessed on the date mentioned by them.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 107 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hoji Sheikh Bodha vs Babu Sukhram Singh And Ors. on 23 July, 1924
Reference may in this connection be made to the decision in Haji Sheikh Bodha v. Babu Sukhram Singh, AIR 1925 All 1 (FB) where Sulaiman, J. expressed the view that such a new question could rot be allowed to be raised at the final hearing.
Kalika Prasad Ojha And Ors. vs Mt. Jhenjho Kuer And Ors. on 12 December, 1962
11. All the same, it has been argued by Mr. Parakh that no such presumption should be raised because the document has not been signed by the executants themselves and there is no evidence to prove that those who signed it were the authorised agents of the executants. In other words, the learned counsel has argued that there could be no presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the agents' authority to sign a document in such circumstances and that, in the absence of such evidence, the document could not be relied upon as the title deed of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has made a reference to Harihar Prasad Singh v. Deonarain Pra-sad, AIR 1956 SC 305, Ram Naresh v. Chirkut, AIR 1932 Oudh 227, Mohammad Azim v. Special Manager, Court of Wards, "Balrampur, AIR 1936 Oudh 170, Ramani Kanta v. Bhimanandan Singh, AIR 1924 Cal 82 and Kalika Prasad Ojha v. Mt. Jhenjbo Kuer, AIR 1964 Pat 241 in support of his argument. There is, however, no substance in this argument.
Balkaran Singh And Ors. vs Mt. Dulari Bai And Ors. on 25 June, 1926
This view has been followed in Mt. Balkaran Singh v. Mt. Dulari Bai, AIR 1927 All 231.
Sheo Nandan Ahir vs Ram Lagan Singh And Anr. on 13 July, 1915
Mohammad Azim's case, AIR 1936 Oudh 170 was based on the decision in Sheo Nandan Ahir v. Ram Lagan Singh, 13 All LJ 921=(AIR 1915 All 393 (2)) which was overruled in the Full Bench decision in AIR 1925 All 1 (FB) to which I shall refer a little later. In AIR 1924 Cal 82 the signature was of an "ammukhtar' and this is why it was held that his authority as such had to be proved and could not be presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.