Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.64 seconds)
Chandrabhagabai Ganpati Karwar Died ... vs Sambhaji Narhari Karwar Died His Lrs. ... on 6 July, 2007
cites
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Subash Popatlal Shah vs Smt. Lata Subhash Shah on 21 June, 1993
In Subhash Popatlal Shah v. Smt. Lata Subhash Shah , it is held that the saptapadi is not always a must to prove valid marriage between the parties. The marriage between the parties, in absence of saptapadi, cannot be illegal and invalid.
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan on 13 October, 1993
Mr. Solshe seeks to rely on S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Ors. . The Apex Court held that presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act would be available when a man and woman were living under same roof and cohabiting for a number of years and they would be presumed to be husband and wife.
Dolgobinda Paricha vs Nimai Charan Misra & Others on 27 April, 1959
19. There is satisfactory evidence on record to show that deceased Ganpati and the defendant lived together for a considerable period and were regarded as husband and wife. It is more probable that due to such a marriage by Ganpati with a woman of lower caste, the deceased plaintiff was annoyed. There is greater probability of such reason being the driving force at the time of partition effected between deceased Ganpati and his brother Rama. There is proximity of time between the companionship of deceased Ganpati and the defendant with the event of the family partition. Under the circumstances, the first Appellate Court ought to have held that the presumption was available regarding the legitimacy of the marriage and the same was not rebutted by the plaintiff. For, the plaintiff's evidence falls short to prove that the defendant was keep of deceased Ganpati. Mr. Natu, learned Advocate for the respondent No. (i) would submit that opinion evidence of relationship could not be given importance because the witnesses had no special knowledge. He seeks to rely on Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nirmal Charan Misra and Ors. . The Apex Court observed, in the given case, that opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. The "belief" or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. With respects, this authority is of no assistance to the respondents in the present case. The defendant examined witnesses, attended her marriage. The first Appellate Court rejected her contention only because there was no proof regarding performance of "Homa" and "Saptapadi".
Section 2 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Baby vs Jayant Mahadeo Jagtap And Ors. on 29 January, 1981
In Smt. Baby v. Jayant Mahadeo Jagtap and Ors. , it has been held that such customary marriage would be valid. The first Appellate Court committed error while observing that due to non-performance of the "Saptapadi", the marriage was invalid.