Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)
Manjeet Kaur vs Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors on 17 September, 2019 cites

Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 5 May, 2010

[17]. In the instant case, there is no such proposition involved. The plaintiff herself has come forward to establish her identity on the basis of DNA profile with her mother in order to establish that she is daughter of Jeet Singh. The claim is for a share in the property of Jeet Singh. The legal proposition involved on the issue is settled by now. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is the subject matter of public morality and public policy and the same was aimed not to brand an innocent child as bastard which may have devastating effect on the mind of the child. The effect of such a test even in the light of stand taken by the defendants would not be having any issue, nor possibility of branding plaintiff to be a bastard as the defendants have already taken a stand that she is not daughter of Jeet Singh. In such a scenario the application for test of DNA profile can be allowed. The ratio(s) of Sharda vs. Dharampal; Bhabani Prasad Jena; Selvi vs. State of Karnataka; Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another; Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, 2011(17) SCC 130; Nandlal Wasudeo Badwalk and Dipantwita Roy's cases (supra) are fully attracted in the present case. [18].
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 290 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. on 23 September, 2011

[17]. In the instant case, there is no such proposition involved. The plaintiff herself has come forward to establish her identity on the basis of DNA profile with her mother in order to establish that she is daughter of Jeet Singh. The claim is for a share in the property of Jeet Singh. The legal proposition involved on the issue is settled by now. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is the subject matter of public morality and public policy and the same was aimed not to brand an innocent child as bastard which may have devastating effect on the mind of the child. The effect of such a test even in the light of stand taken by the defendants would not be having any issue, nor possibility of branding plaintiff to be a bastard as the defendants have already taken a stand that she is not daughter of Jeet Singh. In such a scenario the application for test of DNA profile can be allowed. The ratio(s) of Sharda vs. Dharampal; Bhabani Prasad Jena; Selvi vs. State of Karnataka; Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another; Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, 2011(17) SCC 130; Nandlal Wasudeo Badwalk and Dipantwita Roy's cases (supra) are fully attracted in the present case. [18].
Delhi High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 46 - G Mittal - Full Document

Hawa Singh & Ors vs Maiperson And Anr on 10 January, 2017

9 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 08:56:26 ::: CR No.4907 of 2016 (O&M) 10 [16]. Civil Revision No.4730 of 2016 titled 'Hawa Singh and others vs. Maiperson and another' and Civil Revision No.6239 of 2015 titled 'Ragbir vs. Bharto Devi and others' both decided by this Court on 10.01.2017 were on different footings. This Court has acknowledged the legal position with reference to aforesaid precedents, but in view of facts and circumstances of those cases the permission was not granted. In Hawa Singh and others' case (supra), the plaintiffs/ petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1 was owner in possession of 1/8th share and plaintiffs No.2 to 5 were owners in possession of 1/8 th share each on the suit land. Plaintiffs also sought other declaration qua different shares in the suit property. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was inherited by Ramji Lal and Risala from their father Baksha, who had inherited the same from his father Masaniya. Ramji Lal was married to Sarti. Risala was married to Bhurli. Defendants in that case were born from the wedlock of Risala and Bhurli. Plaintiffs in that case asserted that Ramji Lal was in Army and he did not visit the village from the years 1940 to 1946. His whereabouts were not known. Thereafter wife of Ramji Lal started living with Risala as his wife. Plaintiffs of that case took birth from that wedlock of Risala and Sarti. Ramji Lal was in Army and he had returned to village in the year 1946 and 10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 08:56:26 ::: CR No.4907 of 2016 (O&M) 11 thereafter again started living with Ramji Lal. In that scenario, the plaintiffs claimed that they are sons of Risala and Sarti. Factum of Hawa Singh and Jai Singh being sons of Risala was denied, rather they were claimed to be sons of Ramji Lal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - R M Singh - Full Document

Smt. Sharda Devi vs Dharampal Alias Dharma on 6 May, 2013

[17]. In the instant case, there is no such proposition involved. The plaintiff herself has come forward to establish her identity on the basis of DNA profile with her mother in order to establish that she is daughter of Jeet Singh. The claim is for a share in the property of Jeet Singh. The legal proposition involved on the issue is settled by now. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is the subject matter of public morality and public policy and the same was aimed not to brand an innocent child as bastard which may have devastating effect on the mind of the child. The effect of such a test even in the light of stand taken by the defendants would not be having any issue, nor possibility of branding plaintiff to be a bastard as the defendants have already taken a stand that she is not daughter of Jeet Singh. In such a scenario the application for test of DNA profile can be allowed. The ratio(s) of Sharda vs. Dharampal; Bhabani Prasad Jena; Selvi vs. State of Karnataka; Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another; Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, 2011(17) SCC 130; Nandlal Wasudeo Badwalk and Dipantwita Roy's cases (supra) are fully attracted in the present case. [18].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - K Kannan - Full Document

Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

[17]. In the instant case, there is no such proposition involved. The plaintiff herself has come forward to establish her identity on the basis of DNA profile with her mother in order to establish that she is daughter of Jeet Singh. The claim is for a share in the property of Jeet Singh. The legal proposition involved on the issue is settled by now. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is the subject matter of public morality and public policy and the same was aimed not to brand an innocent child as bastard which may have devastating effect on the mind of the child. The effect of such a test even in the light of stand taken by the defendants would not be having any issue, nor possibility of branding plaintiff to be a bastard as the defendants have already taken a stand that she is not daughter of Jeet Singh. In such a scenario the application for test of DNA profile can be allowed. The ratio(s) of Sharda vs. Dharampal; Bhabani Prasad Jena; Selvi vs. State of Karnataka; Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another; Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, 2011(17) SCC 130; Nandlal Wasudeo Badwalk and Dipantwita Roy's cases (supra) are fully attracted in the present case. [18].
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 321 - D Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next