Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
Balwant Singh Son Of Phoola Ram vs Buta Ram Son Of Shankar Dass on 13 July, 2009 cites

Kanshi Ram And Ors. vs Kesho Ram Bahna And Ors. on 8 November, 1960

In Kanshi Ram and others Vs. Kesho Ram Bahra and others (AIR 1961 Punjab 299), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that the principle of estoppel, contained in Section 41, must yield to the doctrine of list pendes contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, under which no title, in the property can be validly transferred during the pendency of litigation, in respect of it. The principle of law, laid down, in the said case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, the Courts below, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that Balwant Singh, appellant, was not entitled, to the protection, under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the property was transferred, in his favour during the pendency of litigation, in respect thereof. The submission of the Counsel for Balwant Singh, appellant, thus, R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 14 R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007 being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

H.P. Pyarejan vs Dasappa(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 6 February, 2006

In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 9 R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007 the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the gamble." It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to hearing of substantial questions of law. P1 is the agreement to sell. Ram Parkash Gulati, PW1, is the scribe of the agreement to sell. He proved the execution of the said document. Buta Ram, plaintiff/respondent, when appeared, in the witness box, as his own witness, also corroborated the statement of Ram Parkash Gulati. Yashpal Chand Jain, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, PW4, compared the questioned thumb impressions of Shingara Ram, on the agreement to sell P1, with his specimen thumb impressions, on the Vakalatnama, in favour of Raj Pal Singh, Advocate, and came to the conclusion, that the questioned thumb impressions, on the agreement to sell, were affixed by the person, who affixed the same, on the Vakalatnama, referred to above. The science, with regard to the identification of thumb impressions, is conclusive, and admits of no doubt. Once the thumb impression of Shingara Ram, was found, in existence, on the agreement to sell, it was for the defendants, to explain, as to how, the same came into existence, on the said document. A plea was taken up by the defendants that, on the pretext of handing over the possession, their signatures/thumb impressions were taken, on a blank paper, which were, later on, converted into an agreement to sell. But no reliable evidence, was produced in that regard, and hence, that plea, was rightly rejected by the R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 10 R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007 Courts below. No doubt, Kulwant Rai, DW1, an attesting witness of the agreement to sell, was examined, by the defendants, and he denied the execution of the said agreement to sell, by them, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. However, the trial Court, in my opinion, rightly discarded his statement, on the ground, that he must have been won over by them (defendants). The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that the execution, legality, and validity of the agreement to sell stood proved. The Courts below, were also, right in holding, that the agreement to sell, was not the result of fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 196 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Bishan Paul vs Mothu Ram on 24 March, 1965

Bishan Paul's case (supra), related to the interpretation of Rules 90 and 92 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, and Gurbax Singh's case (supra), also related to the interpretation of Rule 90 of the aforesaid rules. The instant case, does not relate to the interpretation of Rule 90 of the aforesaid Rules. In the instant case, the intention of the parties, as to when the period of limitation, was to commence, was required to be gathered, from the terms and conditions of the contract. The intention of the parties, if gathered, from the terms and conditions of the contract, was that after the execution of the sale deed, in favour of the vendors, the prospective vendee, shall approach them, within one month, for the execution of the sale deed. Until and unless, the sale deed/conveyance deed, had been executed, in favour of the vendors, they could not be said to be legally competent, to execute the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent/prospective vendee, on the basis of the agreement to sell. In this view of the matter, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellants, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases as the facts thereof are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. The Courts below, were, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the suit R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 13 R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007 was well within limitation. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 37 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors on 18 April, 2006

In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 9 R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007 the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the gamble." It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to hearing of substantial questions of law. P1 is the agreement to sell. Ram Parkash Gulati, PW1, is the scribe of the agreement to sell. He proved the execution of the said document. Buta Ram, plaintiff/respondent, when appeared, in the witness box, as his own witness, also corroborated the statement of Ram Parkash Gulati. Yashpal Chand Jain, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, PW4, compared the questioned thumb impressions of Shingara Ram, on the agreement to sell P1, with his specimen thumb impressions, on the Vakalatnama, in favour of Raj Pal Singh, Advocate, and came to the conclusion, that the questioned thumb impressions, on the agreement to sell, were affixed by the person, who affixed the same, on the Vakalatnama, referred to above. The science, with regard to the identification of thumb impressions, is conclusive, and admits of no doubt. Once the thumb impression of Shingara Ram, was found, in existence, on the agreement to sell, it was for the defendants, to explain, as to how, the same came into existence, on the said document. A plea was taken up by the defendants that, on the pretext of handing over the possession, their signatures/thumb impressions were taken, on a blank paper, which were, later on, converted into an agreement to sell. But no reliable evidence, was produced in that regard, and hence, that plea, was rightly rejected by the R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 10 R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007 Courts below. No doubt, Kulwant Rai, DW1, an attesting witness of the agreement to sell, was examined, by the defendants, and he denied the execution of the said agreement to sell, by them, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. However, the trial Court, in my opinion, rightly discarded his statement, on the ground, that he must have been won over by them (defendants). The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that the execution, legality, and validity of the agreement to sell stood proved. The Courts below, were also, right in holding, that the agreement to sell, was not the result of fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 515 - Full Document
1