Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.75 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 299 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
D.P. Lon vs Collector Of Central Excise & Customs on 13 March, 2003
16. As far as Punjab National Bank Vs. Indian Bank supra relied upon
by the counsel for the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff in the suit for
recovery therein had made the claim in US dollars equivalent to Indian
rupees and the amendment sought was the deletion of the amount claimed in
rupees as stated in the plaint. It was in this context that in para 15 of the
judgment to which the counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention, the
Supreme Court held that since no fresh facts were being introduced and the
amount claimed had already been stated in US dollars, the amendment
should have been allowed. The question of withdrawal of admission by way
of amendment did not arise for consideration in that case.
Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati (Dead)By L.Rs vs Prem Prakash & Ors on 10 May, 1995
42. I have drawn the attention of the counsel for the defendant no.17 to
the dicta of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4
SCC 496, Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639,
Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (204) 10 SCC 779, T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570 and P.T. Munichiklanna
Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, L.N. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash
(2009) 13 SCC 229 and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah
(2010) 2 SCC 461 holding that the plea of lawful possession and adverse
possession are mutually destructive and cannot be taken alternatively and have
enquired, whether the defendant no.17 is claiming lawful possession or adverse possession.
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
42. I have drawn the attention of the counsel for the defendant no.17 to
the dicta of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4
SCC 496, Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639,
Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (204) 10 SCC 779, T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570 and P.T. Munichiklanna
Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, L.N. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash
(2009) 13 SCC 229 and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah
(2010) 2 SCC 461 holding that the plea of lawful possession and adverse
possession are mutually destructive and cannot be taken alternatively and have
enquired, whether the defendant no.17 is claiming lawful possession or adverse possession.
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
42. I have drawn the attention of the counsel for the defendant no.17 to
the dicta of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4
SCC 496, Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639,
Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (204) 10 SCC 779, T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570 and P.T. Munichiklanna
Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, L.N. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash
(2009) 13 SCC 229 and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah
(2010) 2 SCC 461 holding that the plea of lawful possession and adverse
possession are mutually destructive and cannot be taken alternatively and have
enquired, whether the defendant no.17 is claiming lawful possession or adverse possession.
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
42. I have drawn the attention of the counsel for the defendant no.17 to
the dicta of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4
SCC 496, Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639,
Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (204) 10 SCC 779, T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570 and P.T. Munichiklanna
Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, L.N. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash
(2009) 13 SCC 229 and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah
(2010) 2 SCC 461 holding that the plea of lawful possession and adverse
possession are mutually destructive and cannot be taken alternatively and have
enquired, whether the defendant no.17 is claiming lawful possession or adverse possession.