Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 2003 AIR (Supreme Court) 4351,
Krishna Mohal Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and another vs. Pratima Maity
and others to submit that the onus to prove the validity of a document is on
the person in whom the confidence is reposed i.e. the dominant party.
Section 111 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
(c) The trial Court has rightly recorded a finding of fact that
the suit is instituted by Gugan through his special power
of attorney/PW-4 Sheela, who while appearing as her
own witness, stated that she had no personal knowledge
about the impugned decree as she was appointed special
power of attorney 10 years after passing of the impugned
decree, therefore, in view of the judgment in Janki
Vashdeo Bhojwan's case (supra), the statement of PW-4
Sheela can be read only with regard to her personal
knowledge in her own capacity and cannot be read with
regard to her knowledge of any fraud, misrepresentation
14 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 03:34:53 :::
RSA No. 4685 of 1999 (O&M) -15-
or coercion exerted by appellant Ram Karan or his
mother. The trial Court has also recorded a finding of
fact that the decree was passed on 30.07.1986 and
mutation Ex. P-4 was entered by the Patwari on
30.07.1986 and was verified by the Kanungo in
November, 1987 and was finally sanctioned by the
Tehsildar on 08.11.1987. The endorsement on this
mutation Ex. P-4 reflects that when it was sanctioned,
the Tehsildar has verified the fact about the decree from
Gugan, who appeared in person along with a local
Numberdar, therefore, this fact came to the notice of
Gugan that even in the revenue record, the mutation has
been sanctioned and in the subsequent jamabandis, the
ownership was transferred in the name of Ram Karan.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Som Dev & Ors vs Rati Ram & Anr on 6 September, 2006
Learned senior counsel has further relied upon a judgment of
this Court rendered in 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 657, Jagdish vs. Ram Karan,
2019 (2) Law Herald 1634, Dharambir Singh vs. Braham Parkash as well
as judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 303, Som
Dev and others vs. Rati Ram and another to submit that a decree based on
the admission of a party does not require any registration. It is argued that
once the appellant/defendant has proved that there was a family settlement
between Ram Karan and Gugan, the lower appellate Court patently erred in
going beyond the impugned decree to record a finding contrary to that and
holding that it requires registration, therefore, the finding recorded by the
lower appellate Court is erroneous.
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. Lr.Smt. ... vs Rajinder Singh & Ors on 11 July, 2006
Learned senior counsel has relied upon an application dated
9 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 03:34:53 :::
RSA No. 4685 of 1999 (O&M) -10-
26.09.1993 Ex. D-6, which was filed by the plaintiff for setting aside the
impugned consent decree but was withdrawn on 08.06.1996, vide order Ex.
D-8/D-9 and thereafter, the present suit was filed, therefore, the second suit
is not maintainable as neither any fraud nor any misrepresentation was
proved. Reliance, in this regard, is place upon a judgment of this Court in
2000 (1) RCR (Civil) 122, Parveen Kumar vs. Shiv Ram alias Sheo Ram,
2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 62, Rajjo vs. Jawahar Singh as well as a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 479, Pushpaj Devi Bhagat
(D) Th. LR. Smt. Sadhna Rai vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors.