Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Late Bharamappa Siddalingappa ... vs Shri.Booradappa S/O Shanmukhappa ... on 14 September, 2020 cites

Sri R Narayanaswamy vs Sri A V Narayana Swamy on 24 March, 2016

Insofar as Sri.R.Narayanaswamy (supra) is also distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case on hand without much ado. The Coordinate Bench of this Court on the facts obtaining therein was of the view that, both the Courts have concurrently erred in not considering the purport of Section 20 of the Act and remitted the matter back to the hands of the trial Court, in the light of non-consideration by both the Courts with regard to Section 20 of the Act. In the case on hand, the trial Court has considered in detail with regard to Section 20 of the Act as also the admission on the part of the defendant that he and his family have separate agricultural lands which is not subject matter of the suit. Hence, looking at the admission on the part of D.W.1 and Ex.P7, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - A N Gowda - Full Document

Union Of India vs K.V. Lakshman & Ors on 29 June, 2016

n. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the rulings reported in 2016(4) KCCR (SC) 2977 (Union of India vs. K.V.Lakshman and others) wherein it has been held that the first appeal is a valuable right and the first appellate court has the duty to appreciate the entire evidence and reported in 2016(3) KCR 1935 (Sr.R.Narayanaswamy vs Sr.A.V.narayana Swamy) wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the court to consider the hardship while granting the specific relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. This Court is bound by the principle of law laid down in the said 19 rulings and the said rulings are not applicable for the present facts and circumstances."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 102 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Hemanta Mondal vs Sri Ganesh Chandra Naskar on 23 September, 2015

Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in the case of Hemanta Mondal(supra), the same is distinguishable on the facts of the case on hand inasmuch as the question with regard to ownership and possession were at dispute which had lead to the non-conclusiveness of the agreement between the parties, which are not the facts of the case on hand where the execution of agreement is not in dispute, as also in the light of the very evidence of D.W.1 admitting 20 that his family does possess separate lands and separate family business.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - P C Pant - Full Document
1