Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.29 seconds)
Between vs And on 17 December, 2025 cites

Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956

In Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, 1956 SCR 451 : AIR 1956 SC 593] which is the locus classicus on the subject, it was held as follows : (AIR p. 599, para 18) "18. An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it might become conclusive by way of estoppel."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 565 - S J Imam - Full Document

Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd on 5 July, 2011

It would be pertinent to mention that in Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. [Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., (2011) 15 SCC 273 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 376] , it was also held that the admission should be categorical, should be conscious and deliberate act of the party making it. As far as the present case is concerned, we do not find any clear-cut admission with regard to the existence RNT, J & MRK, J 45 AS No.80 of 2018 & 3 CRPs of an HUF. At best, from the recitals in the mortgage deed and averments in the written statement, all that can be said is that at the relevant period of time the property was treated to be a joint property."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 193 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

R. Deivanai Ammal (Died) vs G. Meenakshi Ammal on 13 July, 2004

"13. Further, it is a settled principle of law that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, then there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available. That apart, while considering the term 'nucleus' it should always be borne in mind that such nucleus has to be established as a RNT, J & MRK, J 27 AS No.80 of 2018 & 3 CRPs matter of fact and the existence of such nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities. This Court in R. Deivanai Ammal (Died) v. G. Meenakshi Ammal12, dealt with the concept of Hindu Law, ancestral property and the nucleus existing therein. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below for ready reference:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 47 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next