Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.83 seconds)
A.S.Murugan vs Neelavathi cites

Pentapati Venkataramana And Ors. vs Pentapati Varahalu And Ors. on 22 September, 1938

8. While absolutely there is no quarrel about the proposition as laid by this Court in the said Judgment, I do not think that fact of the present case can be taken as an instance for the purpose of granting relief to the plaintiff. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the applicant on the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Pentapati Venkataramana and Others V. Pentapati Varahalu and Others (A.I.R.1940 Madras 308) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. That was again a case where in respect of dissolution of partnership when the plaintiff has claimed a wider relief which cannot be granted, but at the same time, it was held that it will not deprive him to restrict his right to a limited relief.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Kidar Lall Seal And Another vs Hari Lall Seal on 18 December, 1951

9. The one other Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel, in my considered view has no application to the facts of the present case. That was the case rendered by the Supreme Court in Kedar Lal Seal and another Vs. Hari Lal Seal (A.I.R.(39) 1952 SC 47). That was a case relating to suit for contribution under the Transfer of Property Act in which it was held that the Courts will be slow in throwing out a claim on a mere technicality, while deciding about Order 6 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, regarding method of computation. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that it is a matter of law and it is for the Judge to apply the law to the facts and give the plaintiff such relief as appropriate to the case. The operative portions of the Judgement reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 78 - V Bose - Full Document

P. Panneerselvan vs A. Baylis (Deceased By L.Rs.) And Ors. on 20 April, 2006

13. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the validity of the will executed by Raji Gounder has never been questioned cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is for the plaintiff who comes to the Court on the basis of a document, which in its turn totally depends upon the Will executed by Raji Gounder, to prove that the Will was properly executed and it was a valid Will. It is the case of the defendant that the suit properties are joint family properties and infact the defendants have filed suit for partition as seen in O.S.No.38/1998 under Ex.B8. Under such circumstances, the onus of proof is certainly heavy on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the will Ex.A9. A reference to the evidence of the attesting witness P.W.1 and P.W.5 scribe is discussed by both the Courts below would show that those witnesses are not worthy witnesses and they were in fact found to be either document writer or the identifying witness P.W.4 as a person always loitering in the Register office as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is for the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the Will and he cannot take advantage of the defects or weakness on the other side as laid down by the Division bench of this Court in P.Panneerselvan Vs. A.Baylis S/o V.Anbumani (2005 5 CTC Pg 17).
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 22 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Chellathurai And Five Ors. vs Perumal Nadar on 15 April, 1998

" 15.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the lease deed has not been produced by the first defendant and as such adverse inference can be drawn against him. The burden is only upon the petitioner to prove his case and he cannot take advantage of the weakness in defence. In fact, the first defendant already filed O.S.No.2494/99 for permanent injunction relating to the entire property and he could have filed the lease deed in that suit. The learned counsel for the first defendant also relied on Chellathurai and five others v. Perumal Nadar, 1998 (3) M.L.J 567 that in a suit for injunction, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that he continued to be in possession on the date of the suit. Only when evidence on both sides are let in title to the property will have some relevance, Merely because the defendant has failed to prove his case, it does not follow that the plaintiff is in possession."
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Kesavalu Naidu vs Doraiswami Naidu (Died) And Ors. on 26 December, 1957

7. To substantiate his contention, he would rely upon the Judgment of this Court rendered in Kesavalu Naidu V. Doraiswami Naidu (died) and Others (1958 1 MLJ 189). That was a case wherein, a suit for declaration of joint ownership of property set apart for and used as a passage while, there was a finding that claim to ownership has not been proved. The question arose as to whether a restricted relief of user of passage can be granted. It was in those circumstances, this Court has held granting lesser relief. While the plaintiff claims more than what he is entitled to, the Court will not dismiss the suit but give the relief to which he is entitled to. This Court has also held that it is the duty of the Court to mould the relief to be granted to the parties according to the facts proved. The relevant portion of the Judgment are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1