Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Subhash Chandra vs Mohammad Sharit And Ors on 19 December, 1989
"9. We may next consider the decision in Devi Dass relied on by the respondents. In Devi Dass the case was remanded, as the Appellate Authority and the High Court had not considered at all the contention of the tenant that the sale was sham. But in this case, the trial Court and the appellate court have considered the evidence on the question whether the transaction was sham and recorded a finding thereon. Further, the decision in Devi Dass was rendered on facts, where apparently the tenant had not accepted the purchaser as his landlord by attornment. In this case the respondent tenants attorned to the new landlord (the appellant) and were paying the rents to him. It is now well settled that where on being informed of the sale of the premises by the vendor/purchaser, the tenant acknowledges the purchaser as his landlord, and pays the rents to him, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that the sale in favour of his landlord is sham. The only exception to this principle is, where the derivative title of the purchaser landlord is challenged by the tenant by pleading and proving that when he attorned, he was labouring under a mistake or ignorance as to material facts affecting title of the new landlord. (See Tej Bhan Madan v. II ADJ and Subhash Chandra vs. Mohd. Sharif). We may refer to the classic statement from Spencer Bower and Turner on Estoppel by Representation (3rd Edn.) on this issue:
State Of Bihar vs Modern Tent House on 16 August, 2017
(44) He placed reliance in the case of The State of Bihar and others (Supra). Relevant paragraph of the judgment is being quoted below:
Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
"15. ......Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action." (See Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, SCC p. 504, para 15).
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
Similar view has also been expressed in Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1663.
Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs Km. Jyoti Sahay And Anr. on 18 February, 1983
To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra), does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled.
Lingala Kondala Rao vs Vootukuri Narayana Rao on 21 November, 2002
The following observation of this Court in Lingala Kondala Rao v. Vootukuri Narayana Rao is also apposite: (SC p. 677, para 11)
"In an eviction suit between the landlord and the tenant the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord cannot be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has been executed and registered in accordance with law and the transaction is otherwise legal."
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
22. Delay in itself may not be crucial on an application for amendment in a written statement, be it for introduction of a new fact or for explanation or clarification of an admission or for taking an alternate position. It is seen that the issues have been framed in the case before us, only in 2009. The nature and character of the amendment and the other circumstances as in the instant case which we have referred to above, are relevant while considering the delay and its consequence on the application for amendment.
Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors on 30 November, 1973
23. We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup (supra) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.