Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)

Raghunath Prasad vs Sarju Prasad on 18 December, 1923

In Subhas Chandra case (ibid), this Court quoted with approval the observations of the Privy Council in Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad(2) which expounded three stages for consideration of a case of undue influence. It was pointed out that the first thing to be considered is, whether the plaintiff or the party asking relief on the ground of undue influence has proved that the relations between the parties to each other are such that one is in a position to dominate the will of the other. Upto this point 'influence' alone has been made out. Once that position is substantiated, the second stage has been reached -namely, the issue whether the transaction has been induced by undue influence.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Ladli Prasad Jaiswal vs Karnal Distillery Co., Ltd., & Ors on 17 December, 1962

It is well settled that a question whether a person was in a position to dominate the will of another and procured a certain deed by undue influence, is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact and if arrived at fairly, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, is not liable to be reopened in second appeal (Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das;(2) Ladli Prashad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.(3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 113 - J C Shah - Full Document

Satgur Parsad vs Har Narain Das on 18 January, 1932

It is well settled that a question whether a person was in a position to dominate the will of another and procured a certain deed by undue influence, is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact and if arrived at fairly, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, is not liable to be reopened in second appeal (Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das;(2) Ladli Prashad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.(3).
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1