Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)
Mst. Aneesa Siddique vs Sh. Shail Kumar Rohatagi on 20 August, 2018 cites

Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007

13. Perusal   of   the   Sale   Deed   Ex.   PW1/2   shows   that   the   suit property has been purchased by the petitioner Aneesa Siddiqui and at the time of its purchase, the same was three storey pucca built up property measuring 324.4068 sq. meters.  The petitioner is stating to be residing in the said property alongwith 20 other family members who   are   allegedly   dependent   upon   her   for   residential   purposes. However, the brothers­in­law of the petitioner cannot be considered to be the family members who are dependent upon the petitioner as it is the husband and children of the petitioner who can be said to be dependent   upon   her   and   not   the   brothers­in­law   and   their   family members.  In case, it is alleged by the petitioner that her brothers­in­ law   and   their   family   members   are   dependent   upon   her   for   the purpose of accommodation as they are living jointly having a single mess and joint business, then also, no documentary proof of joint business or of single mess or of joint residence has been placed on record by the petitioner.     Even though the photocopy of Aadhar E­418/17                         Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi                      Page 11 of 14 Cards have been placed on Court record by the petitioner at the time of   filing   of   the   present   petition,   however,   same   were   never exhibited/proved during evidence by the petitioner for the reasons best known to her.  In the case of Amar Nath Agarwalla v. Dhillo Transport Agency in Civil Appeal No. 1223­1224 of 2005 dated 28.02.2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question whether the Court can look into documents which are not exhibited has held that "it appears that alongwith his written submissions, the plaintiff filed certain documents which were not exhibited at the trial to prove sub­ letting and in our view those documents cannot be looked into since they were not put in evidence and the defendant had no opportunity to   replying   to   those   documents".  The   petitioner   has   nowhere mentioned regarding the Aadhar Cards of her family members in her affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A.   Moreover, the Ex. PW1/4, i.e., Aadhar Card of the petitioner herself does not find any mention in affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A.  Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove the number of family members residing in the suit property and how they can be considered dependent on her for the purpose of accommodation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1