Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.24 seconds)Smt. Rebti Devi vs Ram Dutt & Anr. Etc on 19 November, 1997
1. Rabti Devi v. Ram Dutt, ;
Heirs Of Vrajlal J. Ganatra vs Hairs Of Parshottam S. Shah on 30 April, 1996
(1) SCC 794: (3) Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah, ; and (4) Rabti Devi v. Ram Dutt, .
Pawan Kumar Gupta vs Rochiram Nagdeo on 20 April, 1999
3. Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochiram Nagdeo,
it has been held that the decision as to whether a particular transaction is a benami transaction or not is a question of fact and the High Court should be loathe to interfere under Section 100, C.P.C. It has been further observed by the Supreme Court and several High Courts in cases that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC cannot reverse the findings of the lower appellate court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the lower appellate court another view was possible.
Cheventhipaul Nadar vs Srinivasa Nadar And Ors. on 28 August, 1981
It has, indeed, been held in Cheventhipaul Nadar v. Srinivasar Nadar, 1982 (II) MLJ 348 that in a case by the plaintiff for declaration of title and injunction if the plaintiff is found to be out of possession of the disputed items and if he does not seek recovery of possession, the suit cannot be maintained.
R. Rajagopal Reddy (Died) And Ors. vs Padmini Chandrasekaran (Died) And Ors. on 16 August, 1995
In Rabti Devi v. Ram Dutt, 1997 (2) SCC 714 the three cases, namely R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, NandKishore Mehra v. Sushil Mehra, and S. Sankara Hali and Sankara Institute of Philosphy & Culture v. Kishorilal Goenka, were all explained, harmonised and affirmed.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gapadibai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 1980
In Gapadibai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, , in order to prove the benami nature of the transaction evidence has to be led to show (i) that the purchaser paid the consideration, (ii) that he had the custody of the sale deed, (iii) that he was in possession of the property, and (iv) the motive for the transaction.
Thakur Bhim Singh (Dead) By Lrs And Anr. vs Thakur Kan Singh on 21 December, 1979
In Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: