Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Sahu Madho Das And Others vs Pandit Mukand Ram And Another(And ... on 22 March, 1955
12. The interpretation placed on Ex.A-69 by the Land Reforms Tribunals was affirmed by this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 7479 and 7480 of 1979. Although there was no specific reference to Ex.A-69 in the order passed by this Court in the civil revision petitions, the fact that the appellate order of the Tribunal was affirmed by this Court, conclusively establishes that the interpretation placed upon Ex.A-69 by the appellate Tribunal was accepted by this Court. An order of affirmance in revision by this Court, it is settled law, need not contain elaborate reasons. The order of this Court in the aforesaid civil revision petitions affirming the view of the Land Reforms Tribunals that Ex.A-69 is the document evidencing partition between Bhaskar Rao and his minor son, Rajeev, constitutes a judicial precedent in all subsequent proceedings even between persons who are not parties to the original proceedings, Madho Das v. Mukand Ram; (AIR 1955 SC 481 at 485 para 24).
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
27. As obsered by the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimmajamma, .
Ram Piari vs Bhagwant & Ors on 6 March, 1990
28. The precedents cited for the appellants are of little assistance to them. Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, concerns with the validity of a will executed by the testator one day before his death bequeathing all his property in favour of his grand-children - sons of one of his daughters - and disinheriting his other daughter. The will contained the thumb mark of the testator although he could sign. Such cases warrant stricter scrutiny. In that context, the Supreme Court observed:
Kalyan Singh, London Trained, ... vs Smt. Chhoti And Ors on 1 December, 1989
Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, is a case in which the disputed will purported to have been executed in 1916 was produced for the first time in 1959 when the suit was instituted. No provision was made for the maintenance of the wife of the testator in the will. The Supreme Court, while cautioning that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the will, observed:
Section 5 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
1