Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.52 seconds)Union Of India vs Moksh Builders And Financers Ltd. And ... on 27 October, 1976
This decision was quoted with approval by the Apex Court in the later decision rendered in Union of India v. Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd. and Ors. (supra). The observation of the Court in Paragraph 16 of the judgment is as follows:
Kalwa Devadattam And Two Others vs The Union Of India And Others on 19 April, 1963
...As has been held by this Court in Kalwa Devadattam v. Union of India that where evidence has been led by the contesting parties on the question in issue, abstract consideration of onus are out of place, and the truth or otherwise of the case must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties. This will be so if the Court finds that there is no difficulty in arriving at a definite conclusion
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Roy And Co. And Anr. vs Sm. Nani Bala Dey And Ors. on 31 August, 1978
46. Now coming to the final submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent, the point raised is that the evidence brought on record by the Plaintiff/Appellant was insufficient to satisfactorily prove the case. Relying on the decision of Calcutta High Court in Roy and Co. and Anr. Appellants v. Smt. Nani Bala Dey and Ors. Respondents AIR 179 Calcutta 50 the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the law laid down in this case the plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his own case and not on the defendants weakness. The principle of law cited and relied on is, no doubt, a sound principle of law.
Gangadara Ayyar And Ors. vs Subramania Sastrigal And Ors. on 26 March, 1946
It is however to be noted, as held by the then Federal Court in Gangadare Ayyar and Ors. Appellants v. Subramania Sastrigal and Ors. - Respondents AIR (36) 1949 Federal Court 88 that "when it is not possible to obtain evidence which conclusively establishes or rebuts the allegation, the case must be dealt with on reasonable possibilities and legal inferences arising from proved or admitted facts".
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Subbayya Chakkiliyan vs Maniam Muthiah Goundan And Anr. on 22 November, 1923
24. No doubt, the area of plot No. 231 as per Khatian Parcha Ext.P1, does not also correspond with the total area of the land mentioned in the sale deed (Ext.P3), but to say that for this reason alone, the area mentioned in Parcha Khatian (Ext.B) should be the one mentioned in the sale deed (Ext.P3), would not be in consonance with the materials on record. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that, where there is conflict between boundaries and area, the boundary shall prevail over the area. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Madras High Court in Subbaya Chakkiliyan v. M. Muthia Goundan AIR 1924 Madras 493 where it has been held that
...Ordinarily when a piece of land is sold with definite boundaries, unless it is very clear from the circumstances surrounding the sale that a smaller extent than what is covered by the boundaries was intended to be sold, the rule of interpretation is that boundaries must prevail as against the measurements....