Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Ramji Sharma vs High Court Of M.P., Jabalpur And Ors. on 6 January, 1989
The pleadings of the appellant have not been specifically denied by the respondent No. I. The appellant No. 1 has entered into the witness-box and has supported his contention. The lower Court has rejected his contention only on the ground that the certificate of income filed by him is of the year 1989 (based on his own affidavit) and whereas he has filed his counter claim on 21-4-1986. The lower Court has neither framed specific issue nor has determined the same. The matter pertains to revenue, notice to the Collector was must, as held in the case of Ramji Sharma, (AIR 1989 Madh Pra 247) (supra) itself. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice to remand the case to the lower Court for framing specific issue regarding income and sources of the applicant on the particular date and determine the same again after giving due opportunity to the parties and the Collector concerned.
Laxmi Narayan vs Madan Mohan And Anr. on 21 April, 1987
In Laxmi Narayan v. Madan Mo-han, (AIR 1988 Madh Pra 142) (supra), trial Court's acceptance of plaintiffs evidence and determination on that basis fulfillment by him of the requirements of the Notification was held valid, but it has to be made clear that if Collector chooses to adduce, in any particular case, any contra-evidence, that has also to be assessed in rendering final decision on the claim made for exemption."
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Girija Bai vs A. Thakur Das And Ors. on 9 June, 1967
In the ruling cited in Girja Bai v. A. Thakur Das (supra), it has been held that there is no bar to a defendant claiming reliefs against co-defendants in a partition suit. In a suit for partition, a co-owner defendant, who in order to get her share must seek the cancellation of a release deed which she had executed in favour of the other co-owners defendants cannot only claim that relief by her written statement but also obtain it as a pauper under Order 33. This decision itself was in the revision petition. It does not deal with the point as to whether the order was appealable or revisable.