Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.33 seconds)Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003
24. The above finding clearly demonstrates that the
learned Trial Judge was not 'convinced' that Ex.P1 was an
'agreement to sell'. However, the learned Trial Judge has
held the same as an 'agreement to sell' for two reasons.
Firstly, that the defendants had admitted their signatures in
the Ex.P1 and secondly, in view of the authority in Narbada
Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Another2.
U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) ... vs A.M. Krishnamurthy on 12 July, 2022
27. Shri. Naganand has placed reliance on
U.N.Krishnamurthy Vs. A.M.Krishnamurthy3 and contended
that plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final
decision of the suit, he was ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract.
Katta Sujatha Reddy vs M/S Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. ... on 25 August, 2022
29. Shri. Naganand has next relied upon Katta Sujatha
Reddy Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects4 to urge that
3
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 840 (para 46)
4
(2023) 1 SCC 355 (para 59)
R.F.A No.495/2021
19
amendment to Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is
prospective in nature.
P. Ramasubbamma vs V. Vijayalakshmi on 11 April, 2022
i. P.Ramasubbamma Vs. V. Vijayalakshmi and Ors5;
We may record that the passage relied upon by the
learned Senior Advocate is based on the facts of that case
and therefore does not lend any support to plaintiff's case.
Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo on 23 March, 2009
Gangabai W/O Rambilas Gilda vs Chhabubai W/O Pukharajji Gandhi on 6 November, 1981
Relying on this authority, it was urged by Shri.
Haranahalli that Ex.P.1 is a registered document and
therefore carries a presumption that transaction was a
genuine one and the onus of proof was upon defendants to
show that the Deed did not reflect the true nature of
transaction. This argument was opposed by Shri. Naganand
by placing reliance on Gangabai Vs. Chhabubai7, contending
5
AIR 2022 SC 1793 (para 5.8)
6
(2009) 5 SCC 713 (para 19)
7
(1982) 1 SCC 4 (para 11)
R.F.A No.495/2021
20
that the bar contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable to the
facts of this case because the said Sub-Section is not
attracted when the case of the party is that transaction
recorded in the document was never intended to be acted
upon at all and it was a sham document.