Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Siddaramappa And Ors. vs Smt. Gouravva on 9 December, 2003 cites

Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 31 March, 2000

15. The learned counsel relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Gazi v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2000) 4 SCC 342 : (AIR 2000 SC 1806) relying on the maxim 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' i.e., the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform, it was argued that when the relationship of the husband and the wife is strained and the wife refuses to grant the consent sought for, it is impossible to get her consent and what a man cannot possibly perform cannot be insisted upon. For the application of the doctrine, the first and the foremost requirement is that it should be pleaded that though law requires her consent under the circumstances the party is unable to obtain the necessary consent and, therefore, that should not be insisted upon. In the instant case, the stand taken is consent is not necessary. There is no plea, there is no evidence to show whether the deceased husband of the plaintiff did request the plaintiff to give her consent and that plaintiff refused and, therefore, under those circumstances he was compelled to take in adoption without her consent. The only material placed on record is that they were not on good terms and they were living separately. To demolish the case of the defendant, the plaintiff has produced Exs. P10 and P11. Ex. P10 is the voter's list of Karnataka Legislative Assembly for the year 1988. It shows the name of the plaintiff and her husband and it also shows that they are living at Bellatti Village together under the same roof. Ex. P11 is the wedding invitation card which is in the name of the plaintiff and her husband as the persons who are inviting the invitees. This document is dated 31-1-1982. The said invitation was issued in connection with the marriage of the second defendant whose son is the alleged adopted son. These two documents are not disputed. Therefore, from these two documents it could be reasonably inferred in 1982 the plaintiff and her deceased husband being the eldest in the family had issued the invitation card in their name inviting the people for the marriage of the second defendant. It is followed by Ex. P10 which is a voter's list showing that both these persons were residing together in the year 1988 in Bellatti village., i.e. four years prior to the date of the alleged adoption. Under these circumstances, the said documents with other attendant circumstances show that there is no substance in the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff and her deceased husband had a strained relationship and they were not living together. If that is so, when no request was made to the plaintiff and when her consent was not sought for, it cannot be said that it is impossible to have her consent which enabled the deceased husband to go ahead with the adoption without her consent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

Kalyan Singh, London Trained, ... vs Smt. Chhoti And Ors on 1 December, 1989

27. Even assuming that the evidence of DW 2, DW 4 and DW 7 who are the attesting witnesses who have spoken about the writing of the Will, affixing the signature of the testator on the Will and thereafter they affixing the signature on the Will proves the execution of the Will. A reading of the Will makes it very clear that the testator has disinherited completely his lawfully wedded wife, namely the plaintiff. It is in that context the plaintiff contends once the wife is disinherited a suspicious circumstance exists regarding due execution of the Will and it is for the propounder of the Will to satisfactorily explain that suspicious circumstance. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff brought to my notice three judgments of the Supreme Court. The first judgment is in the case of Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti where the Supreme Court while dealing with the failure of the plaintiff to remove the suspicious circumstance by placing satisfactory material on record has held as under :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next