Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.07 seconds)Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
In Balraj Taneja v. Sunii Madan (supra) it was held that if the plaint itself indicates existence of disputed questions of fact involved in the case, the Court must not pass judgment without requiring the plaintift to prove the fact so as to settle the facts in controversy. It was further held that for non filing of the written statement the suit could not be automatically decreed and just as the court ought not to act blindly or mechanically upon admission of the fact made by defendant in his written statement, it ought not to pass judgment merely because written statement has not been filed and that the court has to be cautious and only on being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved, despite deemed admission, it should proceed to pass judgment. All that can be made out from the judicial precedent relied upon by Mr. Bhandari is that simply because no written statement has been filed but the plaint indicates existence of disputed questions fact, whether the plaintiff has to be put to prove the facts stated in the plaint. The court also cannot pass a decree blindly or mechanically upon admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement. In the present case, the Court did not blindly or mechanically act upon the admissions made by the appellant in the pleadings and depositions made by him. It considered evidence in its entirety inclusive of admissions made by the appellant. It is not from admissions alone that the Court returned the finding with regard to the valid marriage between Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia.
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Madhukar D. Shende vs Tarabai Aba Shedage on 9 January, 2002
In all fairness to Mr. Bhandari we must state that in his endeavour to show that the Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances or that strained relations between Sudarshan bhatia and Poonam Bhatia have not been taken into consideration, which is itself would have shown reasons for Sudarshan Bhatia to dispel natural succession and divest his wife of the properties owned by him, he has placed reliance on Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. , Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Mahindra Chandra Bose and Anr. , Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh and Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. . We may only mention that all these judicial precedents are on their own peculiar facts and have no parity with the facts of the case in hand. We are further of the view that whether Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, it is proved to the hilt that the Will is indeed surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Sridevi & Ors vs Jayaraja Shetty & Ors on 28 January, 2005
In all fairness to Mr. Bhandari we must state that in his endeavour to show that the Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances or that strained relations between Sudarshan bhatia and Poonam Bhatia have not been taken into consideration, which is itself would have shown reasons for Sudarshan Bhatia to dispel natural succession and divest his wife of the properties owned by him, he has placed reliance on Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. , Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Mahindra Chandra Bose and Anr. , Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh and Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. . We may only mention that all these judicial precedents are on their own peculiar facts and have no parity with the facts of the case in hand. We are further of the view that whether Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, it is proved to the hilt that the Will is indeed surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Indu Bala Bose & Ors vs Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr on 18 November, 1981
In all fairness to Mr. Bhandari we must state that in his endeavour to show that the Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances or that strained relations between Sudarshan bhatia and Poonam Bhatia have not been taken into consideration, which is itself would have shown reasons for Sudarshan Bhatia to dispel natural succession and divest his wife of the properties owned by him, he has placed reliance on Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. , Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Mahindra Chandra Bose and Anr. , Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh and Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. . We may only mention that all these judicial precedents are on their own peculiar facts and have no parity with the facts of the case in hand. We are further of the view that whether Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, it is proved to the hilt that the Will is indeed surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Crystal Developers vs Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh (Dead)Thr.Lrs.Ors on 5 October, 2004
In all fairness to Mr. Bhandari we must state that in his endeavour to show that the Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances or that strained relations between Sudarshan bhatia and Poonam Bhatia have not been taken into consideration, which is itself would have shown reasons for Sudarshan Bhatia to dispel natural succession and divest his wife of the properties owned by him, he has placed reliance on Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. , Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Mahindra Chandra Bose and Anr. , Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh and Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. . We may only mention that all these judicial precedents are on their own peculiar facts and have no parity with the facts of the case in hand. We are further of the view that whether Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, it is proved to the hilt that the Will is indeed surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Daulat Ram & Ors vs Sodha & Ors on 16 November, 2004
In all fairness to Mr. Bhandari we must state that in his endeavour to show that the Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances or that strained relations between Sudarshan bhatia and Poonam Bhatia have not been taken into consideration, which is itself would have shown reasons for Sudarshan Bhatia to dispel natural succession and divest his wife of the properties owned by him, he has placed reliance on Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. , Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Mahindra Chandra Bose and Anr. , Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh and Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. . We may only mention that all these judicial precedents are on their own peculiar facts and have no parity with the facts of the case in hand. We are further of the view that whether Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, it is proved to the hilt that the Will is indeed surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Jeewanti Pandey vs Kishan Chandra Pandey on 20 October, 1981
46. The facts of Smt. Jeewanti Pandey (supra) reveal that the parties to the marriage were belonging to a village within the territorial jurisdiction of District Judge, Almora and had married in Delhi and were residing there. The petition for nullity of marriage under Section 12 was filed in the court of the District Judge, Almora and it was held that the District Judge would have no jurisdiction to try the petition.