Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.36 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
D.S. Thimmappa vs Siddaramakka on 29 March, 1996
Relying upon the principles laid down in the above decisions, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Courts below failed to draw proper inferences from the proved facts and the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence, ignoring the weight of preponderating circumstances and by essentially erroneous approach to the matter.
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
But the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has relied upon a latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Others , wherein it was held that.--
Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade vs Maroti Bhaurao Marnor on 5 February, 1999
He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, wherein it was held that.-
Smt. Deokali vs Nand Kishore & Ors on 24 April, 1996
He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Deokali v Nand Kishore and Others , wherein it was held that.--
Ramanuja Naidu vs V. Kanniah Naidu And Anothers on 12 June, 1996
He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramanuja Naidu v V. Kannaiah Naidu, wherein it was held that.--
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
14. The Trial Court has made much of the answer given by plaintiff in her cross-examination that she is not aware of any unregistered Will executed by her late husband in favour of sons of 1st defendant in respect of some of the suit schedule properties and that she does not know that her husband has executed any registered Will in respect of some of the properties in favour of the sons of defendant 1 and has drawn an erroneous inference that she has not specifically denied the execution of the said Wills by her husband Pillareddy. But the above said answers given by the plaintiff only go to show that, to her knowledge, her husband Pillareddy has not executed any Wills bequeathing his properties in favour of his grandsons. So, no inference can be drawn from the above statement made by her in her cross-examination that she has not disputed the genuineness of the Wills Ex. D. 2 and original of Ex. D. 10 and has not specifically denied the execution of the said documents by her husband. Apart from this fact, it is made clear in the ruling of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Shashi Ku-mar Bunerjee's case, supra, that.-