Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)Narayan Mishra And Ors. vs Champa Dibya (Dead) And Ors. on 2 September, 1985
11. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, there is no plea in the written statements of any of the defendants that the deceased was a pardahnashin. only on the basis of the evidence of DW 7, the scribe of Ex. A1, that the deceased wore a White cloth across her face, the learned Counsel for the defendants tried to build up a case that the evidence on record shows that the deceased was a pardahnashin. That statement of DW7, even if true, only shows that the deceased was wearing a 'pardah'. Merely because a Muslim woman wears a 'pardah' in the presence of strange males or when she goes out of her house, she would not become a 'pardahnashin'. Even assuming that a plea that the deceased was a pardahnashin can be raised for the first time in appeal, without a foundation in the pleadings, the following paragraphs in Kharbuja Kuer's case (supra), and extracted in Narayan Mishra's case (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for defendants, would show that the deceased cannot be said to be a pardahnashin lady.
Malamma W/O. Late Balaram vs Permanand on 23 September, 2003
28. The ratio in Malamma's case (supra), Ramjanam Bharthi's case (supra), M.N. Mohammad Mirza's case (supra), Sirmul's case (supra), and Lourdu Mari David's case (supra), is that a person who comes to Court with false case is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Since plaintiff did not come to Court with a false case and since it is the defendants that have set up a false case, the above decisions have no application to the facts of the case.
Lourdu Mari David And Ors vs Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy And Ors on 9 August, 1996
28. The ratio in Malamma's case (supra), Ramjanam Bharthi's case (supra), M.N. Mohammad Mirza's case (supra), Sirmul's case (supra), and Lourdu Mari David's case (supra), is that a person who comes to Court with false case is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Since plaintiff did not come to Court with a false case and since it is the defendants that have set up a false case, the above decisions have no application to the facts of the case.
Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002
In fact, recently in Nirmala Anancts case (supra), the Apex Court held that relief of specific performance cannot be refused merely because permission could not be obtained from the Government. Therefore, plaintiff cannot be denied the relief of specific performance merely on the ground that no permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities was obtained by the defendants.
Musst. Farid-Un-Nisa vs Munshi Mukhtar Ahmed on 6 July, 1925
It is, therefore, manifest that the rule evolved for the protection of pardahnashin ladies shall not be confused with other doctrines, such as fraud, duress and actual undue influence, which apply to all persons whether they be pardahnashin ladies or not.(underlining mine)
It should be remembered that the above observations were made in respect of transactions which took place more than three quarters of a century prior to the date of Ex. A1, when ladies of some communities were practically excluded from social intercourse and communication with outside world and were not interacting with anybody else except their relatives and the members of their families. So, a special protection was given to them at that time. Since the deceased, admittedly, was moving around and was borrowing money and was carrying on business, by no stretch of imagination can she be said to be a 'pardahnashin', in the sense, referred to in the above decision of the Apex Court, relied on by the learned Counsel for the defendants. Even assuming that the deceased was a pardahnashin, as held by the Apex Court in the above decisions, plaintiff, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, can establish due execution of Ex. A1. So, it has to be seen if the evidence on record establishes due execution of Ex. A1 by the deceased.
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
18. Question of plaintiff exercising 'undue influence' either on the deceased or on the first defendant does not arise because the evidence on record does not establish that plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of either the deceased or the first defendant to make them enter into an agreement to sell the suit land, and since the written statements of the defendants are bereft of the details of the fraud, undue influence, etc., alleged by them, which is mandatory as per the ratio in Bishundeo Niirain v. Seogeni Rai and so, it cannot be said that Ex. A1 is vitiated by fraud or coercion or undue influence.
Abdul Hakeem Khan vs Abdul Mannan Khadri on 2 September, 1971
30. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that since the boundaries of the suit land show that it covers the entire extent of land covered by Ex. B11 to B15, which is betwixt the land purchased by the deceased under Ex. B11 and Ex. B13, it is clear that the deceased does not have title to the entire suit land and so plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. I find no forces in the said contention. As stated earlier, defendants are but the legal representatives of the deceased. It is well known that the legal representatives of a person cannot take a plea which could not open to the party, whose estate they are representing. That apart in a suit for specific performance by the vendee, the vendor cannot take a defence that he has no title to the property agreed to be sold. See Mir Abdul Hakeem Khan v. Syed Abdul Mannan Khadri 1972 (1) APLJ 37 and Netyam Venkataramanna v. Mahankali Narasimhan . So, the fact that the suit land comprises of land, which in fact does not belong to the deceased, is not of any consequence. This apart the rule is that nobody can convey a better title than what he has. If deceased was not the owner of the entire suit land and was the owner of only a part of it, plaintiff would get title only to that part over which the deceased had title, but not to that part over which she had no title. So, defendants cannot have any grievance.
Netyam Venkataramanna And Others vs Mahankali Narasimhan (Died) on 18 August, 1993
30. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that since the boundaries of the suit land show that it covers the entire extent of land covered by Ex. B11 to B15, which is betwixt the land purchased by the deceased under Ex. B11 and Ex. B13, it is clear that the deceased does not have title to the entire suit land and so plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. I find no forces in the said contention. As stated earlier, defendants are but the legal representatives of the deceased. It is well known that the legal representatives of a person cannot take a plea which could not open to the party, whose estate they are representing. That apart in a suit for specific performance by the vendee, the vendor cannot take a defence that he has no title to the property agreed to be sold. See Mir Abdul Hakeem Khan v. Syed Abdul Mannan Khadri 1972 (1) APLJ 37 and Netyam Venkataramanna v. Mahankali Narasimhan . So, the fact that the suit land comprises of land, which in fact does not belong to the deceased, is not of any consequence. This apart the rule is that nobody can convey a better title than what he has. If deceased was not the owner of the entire suit land and was the owner of only a part of it, plaintiff would get title only to that part over which the deceased had title, but not to that part over which she had no title. So, defendants cannot have any grievance.