Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
Duli Chand (Dead) By L.Rs vs Jagmender Dass on 8 December, 1989 cites

Lakshman Singh Kothari vs Smt. Rup Kanwar on 22 March, 1961

In this connection, he drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. Rup Kanwar, [1962] 1 SCR 477 wherein this Court had held that in order that an adoption may be valid under Hindu Law there must be a formal ceremony of giving and taking by the natural parent and the adopted parent after exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption and that such an evidence of a valid adoption is not available in this case. The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court have dealt with the evidence available in this case in detail and came to the conclusion that Sri Bhagwan was adopted by Hira Lal. It is not neces- sary for us to rely on the evidence available or the find- ings as proof of a valid adoption under Hindu Law but the evidence and the findings are enough to show that though Duli Chand and Sri Bhagwan are father and natural son, it is not possible to invoke any presumption that they constituted a Joint Hindu Family. It may also be mentioned that in the written statement the tenant had not pleaded specifically that he and Sri Bhagwan, constituted a Hindu Joint Family, that they are in joint possession, that either the business is joint family business or Sri Bhagwan was permitted to use the premises for carrying on any business as licensee re- maining in joint possession. The evidence on adoption is thus to be treated only relevant for the purpose of consid- ering the question whether the tenant has not retained any control over the premises and that he has parted with the possession, and we do not think that the Courts below erred in relying on the same for this purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 67 - R Dayal - Full Document

Bai Hira Devi And Others vs The Official Assignee Of Bombay on 20 February, 1958

At this stage we may dispose of another point raised by the learned counsel in connection with the admissibility of certain evidence in this case. In support of the case of the landlord that Sri Bhagwan was adopted by Hira Lal he exam- ined three witnesses, AW 2, AW 3, and AW 4. The first wit- ness was an Inspector of House Tax According to this witness in the House Tax assessment register Sri Bhagwan was shown as the son of Hira Lal and residing at 26 Sarai Peepal Thalla, which was the residence of Hira Lal and not that of tenant-Duli Chand. The next witness was an Upper Division Clerk of the Excise Department. His evidence was to the effect that in the licence issued under the Central Excise Act the father's name of Sri Bhagwan was shown as Hira Lal. The other witness was Upper Division Clerk in the Sales Tax Department and his evidence was that Sri Bhagwan was an assessee of the Department and as per the records in his office the father's name of Sri Bhagwan was Hira Lal. The learned counsel contended that these evidences were inadmis- sible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides 470 that when the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such con- tract, grant or other disposition of property except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions of Evidence Act. This Court has considered the scope of section 91 in Bai Hira Devi and Others v. The Official Assignee of Bombay, [1958] 1 SCR 1384 it was held therein:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 57 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next