Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)
Gopalakrishna Pillai And Anr. vs Chinnapillai Padayachi And Ors. on 25 February, 1977 cites

Musammat Jagrani Koer vs Kuar Durga Parshad on 3 December, 1913

6. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Jagrani Koer v. Durga Pershad (1914) 26 M.L.J. 153 : 41 I.A. 76 : I.L.R. 36 All. 93, in connection with the submission that better witnesses could hot be expected to testify the will in the present case. In that case the scribe of the will was the mukhtar, and the three attesing witnesses were the diwan, the treasurer and the daroga of the late Kumar Narindra Bahadur, who were his respectable private servants, who used to be always in the house. Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Meenakshi Mills, Madurai vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Madras on 26 September, 1956

In this connection he relied upon the decision in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras , where it was observed that the soundness of a conclusion based on a number of facts found on evidence must be judged by the cumulative effect of all the facts and it is altogether a wrong approach to Consider them individually in an isolated manner in order to explain them and show that inferences other than those drawn by the Tribunal could be drawn from them. The learned Subordinate Judge has, not considered the cumulative effect of the facts brought out before him but has disposed of them one by one observing that it is not sufficient to show that the will could not be genuine.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 126 - S J Imam - Full Document
1