Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors on 30 November, 1973
In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram Others (AIR
1974 SC 471) the Apex Court highlighted that, admissions by
pleadings stand on a higher pedestal, compared to other
admissions. The Apex Court held: -
K.T. Thomas vs Anna @ Akkamma John on 24 June, 2008
31. Though the trial court held the property to be
partible, it had not declared the shares of the defendants.
The suit being one for partition, the status of all the
parties are akin to that of plaintiffs. This court has in
Thomas K.T. v. Anna @ Accamma John and others [2018 (3) KHC 749] held that, in
a preliminary decree the court is bound to declare the
R.F.A. No.588 of 2007
2025:KER:64889
-: 27 :-
shares/rights of the parties to the suit and it is not
dependent on the payment of court fees. Payment of court fee
can be insisted only for separation of the share. The trial
court was to declare the shares of the defendants also.
Anyhow, defendants 1 to 3 have filed IA 696/2023 before the
trial court seeking passing of a supplementary preliminary
decree to declare their shares over the property. The very
partibility of the property is still in issue. Hence the 4th
defendant who claims impartibility of the property has a
legal right to maintain the appeal to challenge the decree
declaring partibility.
Thayyil Gopalan vs Thayyil Madhavi on 9 August, 2019
In Thayyil Gopalan and Ors. v. Thayyil Madhavi and Ors. (2018 (5) KHC 871)
a learned single Judge of this Court explaining the doctrine
of substantial representation held thus: -
1