Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.56 seconds)
Shri. Mankey Ram(Deceased) vs Sh. Ranvir Singh Rana on 28 January, 2019 cites

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

Reliance can further be placed upon the landmark case of Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy ( Dead ) by LRs & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2033, where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. The relevant para is quoted here as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Kartar Singh (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Harbans Kaur (Smt) on 21 January, 1994

Reliance was also placed by Ld. counsel for the defendants on Sita Kashyap (since deceased) through LRs vs. Harbans Kashyap & Ors. [226 (2016) DLT 150] wherein it was held that exclusion of brother from inheritance from bequest could not be per say treated as unnatural and Will could not be faulted as a document surrounded by suspicion and the court ought not to have exaggerated the discrepancies and elevated it to level of "suspicious circumstances" to discard validly executed Will and there is inherently wrong in cutting out someone who, in perception of the testator, has caused him injury or deprived him of valuable benefits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Rabindra Nath Mukherjee& Anr vs Panchanan Banerjee (Dead)By Lrs. & Ors on 9 May, 1995

I also find it relevant to mention here the relevant portion from Rabindra Nath Mukherjee & Anr. Vs. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 459] wherein it was held that registered Will where contents of the Will explained by the Sub Registrar to the testatrix the fact that witnesses to the document were interested or an active part was played by a close relation of one of the executors, in getting the execution of the Will, is also not a suspicious circumstance and character of the document, its genuineness and voluntariness cannot be doubted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 284 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur & Ors on 25 October, 1976

31.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand relied upon a judgment titled as Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur & Ors. [AIR 1977 SC 74] wherein it was found that the explanation given by defendant that he found Will by chance while going through the papers of grandfather was patently lame and unacceptable and there was no evidence to show as to CS SCJ No : 608278/2016 Mankey Ram vs Sh. Ranvir Singh Rana Page No. 30 of 34 where it was executed. However, this case was having different factual matrix and evidence from that as in the present case there is due admission of the thumb impressions of testator as well as due corroboration by the testimonies of other defence witnesses in respect of the Will in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 431 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Executive Officer, Arulmigu ... vs Chandran & Ors on 10 February, 2017

In this regard Ld. counsel for defendant no.1 placed her reliance upon the judgment titled as "Executive Officer CS SCJ No : 608278/2016 Mankey Ram vs Sh. Ranvir Singh Rana Page No. 21 of 34 Arulmigu Chokkanath Swamy Koil Trust Virudhunagar vs. Chandran & ors.", II (2017) SLT 206 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that plaintiff who was not in possession, claimed only declaratory relief along with mandatory injunction and since the plaintiff being out of possession, relief of recovery of possession was a further relief which ought to have been claimed by the plaintiff and thus suit filed by the plaintiff for mere declaration without relief of recovery of possession is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 84 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 Next