Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Nagar Palika, Jind vs Jagat Singh, Advocate on 28 March, 1995
“14. At the outset, let us examine the legal
position with regard to whom the burden of proof
lies in a suit for declaration of title and
possession. This Court in Maaran Mar Basselios
Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avira reported in
MANU/SC/0181/1958 : AIR 1959 AC 31
observed that “in a suit for declaration if the
plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the
strength of their own title.” In Nagar Palika,
Jind vs Jagat Singh, Advocate,
MANU/SC/0260/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 426, this
Court held as under :
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Union of India (2004) 10
SCC 779 , it was held in para 785 as follows :
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan on 10 August, 1999
In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-
Un-Niswan, (1999) 6 SCC 343, it was held as follows by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court :
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors on 12 September, 1958
“14. At the outset, let us examine the legal
position with regard to whom the burden of proof
lies in a suit for declaration of title and
possession. This Court in Maaran Mar Basselios
Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avira reported in
MANU/SC/0181/1958 : AIR 1959 AC 31
observed that “in a suit for declaration if the
plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the
strength of their own title.” In Nagar Palika,
Jind vs Jagat Singh, Advocate,
MANU/SC/0260/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 426, this
Court held as under :
Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996
In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty
[(1996) 6 SCC 166] this Court held:
The Secretary, Taliparamba Education ... vs Moothedath Mallisseri Illath M.N. & Ors on 3 March, 1997
“Interference with the concurrent findings
of the courts below by the High Court under
Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless
warranted by compelling reasons. In any case,
the High Court is not expected to reappreciate
the evidence just to replace the findings of the
lower courts. … Even assuming that another view
is possible on a reappreciation of the same
evidence, that should not have been done by the
High Court as it cannot be said that the view
taken by the first appellate court was based on
no material.”
“15. And again in Secy., Taliparamba Education
Society v. Moothedath Mallisseri Illath M.N.
[(1997) 4 SCC 484] this Court held:
Ramanuja Naidu vs Kanniah Naidu & Anr on 12 March, 1996
In Ramanuja Naidu v. V. Kanniah
Naidu [(1996) 3 SCC 392] this Court held:
1