Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 3 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969
5.4 Fifthly, Mr. Roy submits that Order 19 Rule 3 CPC provides that
affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able to prove
from his own knowledge and since Shri Chittaranjan Roy did not disclose
the source of his knowledge as regards the contention made in the
written statement about the execution of gift deed by Suchitra Bala Roy
and Sukumari Roy, the said written statement could not have been relied
upon, being contrary to the provision of Order 6 Rule 15(4) of the CPC
nor in terms of the provision of Order 19 Rule 3 CPC and on such count,
the finding of the learned Appellate Court on irrelevant material is a
perverse finding. As the requirement of verification to test the
genuineness and authenticity of the allegation and also make the
deponent responsible for the allegation and the same is required to
enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such
affidavit in evidence, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1969) 3
SCC 864 and in State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik,
reported in (1952) 2 SCC 14.
The State Of Bombay vs Purushottam Jog Naik on 26 May, 1952
5.4 Fifthly, Mr. Roy submits that Order 19 Rule 3 CPC provides that
affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able to prove
from his own knowledge and since Shri Chittaranjan Roy did not disclose
the source of his knowledge as regards the contention made in the
written statement about the execution of gift deed by Suchitra Bala Roy
and Sukumari Roy, the said written statement could not have been relied
upon, being contrary to the provision of Order 6 Rule 15(4) of the CPC
nor in terms of the provision of Order 19 Rule 3 CPC and on such count,
the finding of the learned Appellate Court on irrelevant material is a
perverse finding. As the requirement of verification to test the
genuineness and authenticity of the allegation and also make the
deponent responsible for the allegation and the same is required to
enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such
affidavit in evidence, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1969) 3
SCC 864 and in State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik,
reported in (1952) 2 SCC 14.
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
5.8 Ninthly, Mr. Roy submits that the validity of the Exhibit-13 being
put to challenge by the 3rd party petitioners on the ground of its
fraudulent execution, and the 3rd party petitioners having been able to
discharge their initial burden of proof by exhibiting certified copy of the
said gift deed with other documents and the decree-holder being in
fiduciary relationship and being in a position of active confidence in law,
the burden of proving absence of fraud was upon the decree-holder
being in the dominating position and therefore, the decree-holders were
under the obligation to prove that there was fair play in the transaction
which is genuine, as the law presumes everything against the transaction
and the onus is cast upon the person holding the position of confidence
or trust to show that the transaction is perfectly fair and reasonable as
held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Mohan Kul
alias Nani Charan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors.,
reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468 and reiterated in the case of Anil Rishi
v. Gurbaksh Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 558.
Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh on 2 May, 2006
16. It is also to be noted here that Order 6 Rule 4 of the C.P.C.
provides that in all cases, in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue
influence and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary
beyond such as are exemplified in the form of aforesaid, particular (with
date and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. In the instant
case there is no specific pleading to that effect in the petition under
Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C., not to speak of any evidence to
substantiate the same. And as such, the allegation remained
unsubstantiated and the burden could not be discharged. By virtue of the
said Gift Deed, Exhibit - 13, Late Debeswar Choudhury become the
absolute owner of the suit property. Though it is contended by Mr. Roy,
learned counsel for the appellants that the burden of proving the
allegation that the Gift Deed, Exhibit - 13 lies upon the respondents,
having been discharged the initial burden by the appellants, yet, such
submission of Mr. Roy left this Court unimpressed in view of the ratio laid
down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi (supra).