Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.84 seconds)Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Chinta Dasya vs Bhalku Das on 17 March, 1930
Gangesh
war Prasad, J. followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta
Dasya v. Bhalku Das, AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J. held, that
rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally applica
ble to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not be pardah
nashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle
which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to
which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the
cases of males who by reasons of their apparent physical or mental inca
pacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances where they are
greatly amenable to the overpowering influence of another person are in
duced to enter into conveyances and transactions relating to their prop
erty. The basic principle is the same and where it is proved to the satis
faction of the court either that the bargain was on the face of it uncon
scionable or the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap
or that he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which an
other person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast squarely on the
person enjoying the dominating position to show that he secured the deed
in good faith."
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
In Krishna Mohan Kul (supra) as regards execution of the registered
settlement deed Apex Court had (already reproduced hereinabove) observed,
"The Court was dealing with a case where an old, ailing, illiterate person was
stated to be the executant and no witness was examined to prove the execution
of the deed or putting of the thumb impression." In the present case too, NR
had affixed his thumb impressions on the documents dt. 15.01.1999.
Defendants Maya and Ramwati examined no witnesses to prove the execution
of documents or the putting of the thumb impression by NR, who was not
literate and was enfeebled by age.
Sushma Tehlan Dalal vs Shivraj Singh Tehlan & Ors on 4 March, 2011
28. Before parting with this judgment, certain observation qua issue no.2,
pertaining to court fee and jurisdiction, need to be made. Issue no.2 is,
"Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction? OPD". Ld. Trial Court in its judgment (paragraph 18.5) notes
that valuation of the relief of partition at Rs. 200/ is proper. And for this, Ld.
Trial Court relies on the report of Sushma Tehlan Dalal Vs. Shivraj Singh
Tehlan & Ors., 2011 (123) DRJ 91. However, in this report itself (paragraph