Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)
Shyam Kumar Inani vs Vinod Agrawal on 12 November, 2024 cites

Mst. Kharbuja Kuer vs Jangbahadur Rai on 9 April, 1962

34.2. The respondents further contended that Sushila Devi, being an old and illiterate lady, fell into the category of a pardanashin woman entitled to special protection under the law, as established in the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer (Supra). In that case, the Court held that the burden of proving that a Pardanashin lady understood the contents of a document lies on the person seeking to enforce it. However, the facts of the present case are materially different. Firstly, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to suggest that Sushila Devi was a Pardanashin lady who lived in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2845/2015 ETC.ETC. Page 45 of 55 seclusion; mere old age and illiteracy do not suffice to classify her as such. She had independently conducted property transactions in the past, including the purchase of the suit property in 1966, demonstrating her active involvement in legal and financial matters. Secondly, the plaintiffs have adequately discharged any burden of proof by providing credible evidence that the contents of the Agreement to Sell and the General Power of Attorney were duly explained to her. The attesting witness, PW-2, testified that the documents were read over and explained to Sushila Devi before she affixed her signature. Additionally, her son, Kailash Aggarwal, was present during the execution of these documents, and there is no allegation that he raised any objections or that any undue influence was exerted. The defendants have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary or to establish that Sushila Devi did not understand the nature of the transactions. Therefore, the reliance on the principles laid down in Mst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Yogesh Goyanka vs Govind on 13 September, 2022

34.8. Similarly, the respondents have also relied upon the judgment in Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind (supra) where this Court dealt with the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite who had notice of the pending litigation. In that case, the Court held that while transfers made during the pendency of a suit are not void ab initio under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee's rights are subservient to those of the parties in the litigation. The Court allowed the impleadment of the transferee to protect his interests, especially when there was a possibility of collusion between the original parties. However, the facts and legal issues in Yogesh Goyanka are different from the present case. In Yogesh Goyanka, the Court addressed whether a transferee pendente lite could be impleaded in a suit to protect his interests. In contrast, the present case involves the enforceability of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 and whether the subsequent sale deeds executed during the pendency of the suit affect the plaintiffs' rights. While the respondents argue that the sale deeds are not void but subject to adjudication, the CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2845/2015 ETC.ETC. Page 52 of 55 doctrine of lis pendens ensures that such transfers cannot prejudice the plaintiffs' prior contractual rights.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008

34.1. The respondents have relied upon the judgement of this Court in Thiruvengadam Pillai (Supra) to argue that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 and the General Power of Attorney dated 04.09.1990. In that case, the Court dismissed the suit for specific performance because the agreement was written on old stamp papers purchased years earlier, the attesting witnesses were close relatives of the plaintiff and one was not examined, possession was not delivered despite being stated in the agreement, and there was no expert verification of the thumb impression alleged to be that of the defendant. The plaintiff also failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the appellate court wrongly shifted this burden to the defendants. However, the present case is distinguishable on key facts. Here, the Agreement to Sell was executed on appropriate stamp paper without irregularities, and the plaintiffs diligently discharged their burden by providing credible evidence, including the testimony of PW-1 (either the plaintiffs or their Power of Attorney holder with personal knowledge) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2845/2015 ETC.ETC. Page 44 of 55 and the attesting witness PW-2, who was not a close relative but an independent witness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 260 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next