Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 6 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Temple Of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji vs Shri Kanhaiyalal And Ors. on 18 February, 2008
debtor, viz., Mohani Devi and Madanlal were also designed
on some other pretexts to stall the execution proceedings
and these applications/objections also proved to be abortive
and the learned court below rejected them. The objections
submitted at the behest of the appellants purportedly under
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC are therefore nothing but a device to
prolong the execution proceedings, more particularly when
the appellants have not placed on record any material
whatsoever for holding any sort of enquiry. My this view is
clearly fortified from a pronouncement of this Court in case
of Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji Chhota
Bhandar Vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors. [2008 (3) WLC
534]. The Court in the case mentioned to supra has
observed as under:
Section 8 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
Noorduddin vs Dr. K.L. Anand on 6 October, 1994
9. The High Court has also rightly observed
that there was no presumption that the property
owned by the members of the Joint Hindu Family
could a fortiori be deemed to be of the same
character and to prove such a status it had to be
established by the propounder that a nucleus of
Joint Hindu Family income was available and that
the said property had been purchased from the
said nucleus and that the burden to prove such a
situation lay on the party, who so asserted it. The
ratio of K.V.Narayanaswami Iyer case (supra) is
thus clearly applicable to the facts of the case.
We are therefore in full agreement with the High
Court on this aspect as well. From the above, it
would be evident that the High Court has not
made a simpliciter re-appraisal of the evidence to
arrive at conclusions different from those of the
courts below, but has corrected an error as to the
onus of proof on the existence or otherwise of a
Joint Hindu Family property.
1