Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Patel Kamlaben D/O. Chaganbhaivenidas ... vs Patel Ambalal Chaganbhai & 18 on 18 January, 2017 cites

Bahadurbhai Laljibhai Malhotra vs Ambalal Joitaram Heir Of Joitaram ... on 23 January, 2015

Akil Kureshi,J) in case of Bahadurbhai Laljibhai Malhotra v. Ambalal Joitaram, heir of Joitaram Ranchhoddas & Ors. (supra) it has been clearly observed that the knowledge of a fact is Page 7 of 11 HC-NIC Page 7 of 11 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:40:34 IST 2017 C/FA/2806/2016 JUDGMENT attributed to a person either when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for willful abstention from an inquiry or search, he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Thus, when the Appellant / Original Plaintiff is making a claim based on the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, does not bother to make any inquiry with regard to the property or the status of the property of the deceased father who has expired prior to 1956 and thereafter also does not seem to have made any inquiry though the very basis or the foundation for any right, title or claim in the property is the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act and filed the Suit in 2012 with the averments skillfully drafted in the suit that as she is residing abroad, she came to know in the year 2012 about the subsequent transaction of the sale deed in the year 1993 and 2003.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Smt. Dilboo (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors vs Smt. Dhanraji (Dead) And Ors on 12 September, 2000

7. Moreover, a useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Dilboo (Smt.) (dead) by L.Rs. And Ors. v. Dhanraji (Smt.) (dead) and Ors. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the observation in paragraph 25 referring to the registration of the document and the knowledge about the same. It has been clearly observed that the date of registration will be the date of deemed knowledge. It is also well settled that the person who comes before the court has to be vigil while having recourse for exercise of rights. Therefore, the suit which is filed with the averments in the plaint accepted at the face value clearly reflect about the fact that the suit which has been filed on the cause of action or the so called cause of action is hopelessly time barred and is hit by the provisions of Limitation Page 10 of 11 HC-NIC Page 10 of 11 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:40:34 IST 2017 C/FA/2806/2016 JUDGMENT Act. Therefore, the judgment and order cannot be termed as erroneous, which would call for any interference in the present First Appeal. The present First Appeal along with Civil Application therefore deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 90 - S N Variava - Full Document

Habibbhai Yusufbhai Gugarkhan & 2 vs Pramodbhai Rambhai Patel on 30 November, 2015

Learned Counsel Shri Patel has also referred to the judgment of the High Court (Coram: S.G.Shah,J) in case of Habibbhai Yusufbhai Gugarkhan v/s Pramodbhai Ramabhai Patel reported in 2015 (0) AIJEL-HC 233442 and also the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in case of Bahadurbhai Laljibhai Malhotra v. Ambalal Joitaram, heir of Joitaram Ranchhoddas & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) GLR 2760 and emphasized the observations which have been made in paragraphs 10 and 13. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Patel therefore tried to submit that it is the knowledge which would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the limitation, and in the facts of the case, as averred in the plaint, the Appellant / Original Plaintiff came to the knowledge only in the year 2012, and therefore, the judgment and order allowing Application under Order 7 Rule 11 is erroneous.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S G Shah - Full Document

Hitesh Pujabhai Zala vs Kamleshbhai Ravjibhai Patel & on 10 July, 2014

2. Heard learned Counsel Shri Vimal M. Patel appearing with learned Advocate Shri Hitesh V. Patel for the Appellant / Original Plaintiff. Learned Counsel Shri Patel has submitted that the court below has traveled beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11. He emphasized that the court below has considered the merits of the matter where it has been observed referring to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act that the deceased father of the Appellant / Original Plaintiff had expired before the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act was made in the year 1956 giving rise to any cause of action of claiming any right by the Appellant / Original Plaintiff. Learned Counsel Shri Patel strenuously submitted that the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 is mainly on the ground of limitation which has been considered. However, he submitted that it is well settled Page 2 of 11 HC-NIC Page 2 of 11 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:40:34 IST 2017 C/FA/2806/2016 JUDGMENT that the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 is required to be considered only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and is not required to consider any other material including the defence in their written statement. He therefore submitted that while deciding the aspect of limitation, the court has committed an error in not appreciating that it would be a mixed question of facts and law. He submitted that as referred to in the plaint, the cause of action would arise not only from the date of death of the father but subsequent to the execution of the documents, which he has stated, and, as the Appellant / Original Plaintiff is residing abroad, she came to know only in the year 2012, and therefore, from the date of knowledge, the limitation would be counted. Learned Counsel Shri Patel therefore submitted that the impugned order allowing the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 is erroneous.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - R R Tripathi - Full Document
1