Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Laulesia Devi vs Ram Saran Gope & Ors on 11 April, 2013 cites

Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh & Ors vs Ramchandra Ravagowda Sankh & Anr on 9 January, 1969

In the case of AIR 1969 SC 1076 Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh and others Vs. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh (dead) by his legal representatives and another, the Apex Court has held at paragraph 6 that there is no presumption that a Hindu family merely because it is joint, possesses any joint property. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the first instance upon the person who claims it as coparcenary property. But if the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. This is however subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self- acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 91 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008

In the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal 2008 (17) SCC 491, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no amount of evidence on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings can be looked into to grant any relief. Only in exceptional cases, can this general rule be deviated from if the Court is fully satisfied that the pleadings and issues generally gathers the case subsequently put forward and that the parties being conscious of the issue had led evidence on such issue. In the present case as stated the evidence regarding buffalo business and cow business has been stated by the witness for the first time in the Court. In view of the settled law of the Apex Court, therefore, this part of the evidence of the witnesses cannot be looked into or relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 551 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005

In the case of Salim Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India 2005 (6) SCC 344, the Apex Court has held that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately it has became a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In a large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35 sub section 2 C.P.C. Such a practice also encourages filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to the taking up of frivolous defence. Further, whenever cots are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic. When Section 35 (2) C.P.C. provides for costs to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonable incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the Court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 1674 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1