Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
15. It is further to be noted that even under Ex.A9 and Ex.11 issued by the
plaintiff show that in fact, she was aware of the execution of the power of
attorney, she was made known what was the nature of the document and the
contents of the documents. Above documents show as if first defendant has
requested her to execute the power of attorney, though, she refused, but the fact
remains that she was aware of the nature of the document, in such case, she
ought to have avoided the document within a period of 3 years which has not
been done so. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 05:31:02 pm )
AS Nos. 69 & 70 of 2022
Bank Ltd and others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as follows:-
Shambhu Dutt Shastri vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 10 April, 1985
21. We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Shambhu Dutt (supra) followed and reiterated in the case
of Ram Prasad (supra) is the correct view.
Ram Prasad vs Hari Narain And Ors. on 1 August, 1997
21. We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Shambhu Dutt (supra) followed and reiterated in the case
of Ram Prasad (supra) is the correct view.
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
16. Further, no school certificate or passport or other particulars have
been filed to show that she never resided in Puducherry and she has been all
along residing in France for the reasons best known to her. PW1 is also not
aware of what has been transpired personally between the plaintiff and the
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 05:31:02 pm )
AS Nos. 69 & 70 of 2022
defendant. Therefore, his evidence cannot substitute the principal evidence in
assailing the document. Admittedly, the fourth respondent in the main suit has
purchased the property and the title deed also stands in the name of the fourth
respondent. The property is admittedly a vacant site, therefore, as far as the
vacant site is concerned, the possession follows the title which has been settled
in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs and others
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as
follows:-
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
1