Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 50 (0.43 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Motilal Jain vs Smt.Ramdasi Devi & Ors on 20 July, 2000
Dwarka Prasad Singh & Others vs Harikant Prasad Singh & Others on 29 November, 1972
R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors vs Hajee C.Abdul Wahab (D) & Ors on 18 July, 2000
75. As noticed in the above decision, the plaintiff in
this case is also a tenant in respect of the suit schedule
premises and it is impossible for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in
the ordinary course not to be aware of the fact that plaintiff
was residing in the suit schedule premises for a
considerable number of years in view of the evidence
clearly suggesting that their mother was also a tenant in
the same neighbourhood and if what they have stated is
true about Ex.D.4, not to have spoken to the plaintiff, in
which event, being a tenant who was eager to take the deal
through, he would naturally have mentioned about the
original contract namely Ex.P.1. It is observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar situation as follows :
M.M.S.Investments, Madurai And Ors vs V. Veerappan And Ors on 11 April, 2007
[Emphasis supplied]
[(2007) 9 SCC 660 - M.M.S. INVESTMENTS,
MADURAI AND OTHERS Vs. V. VEERAPPAN AND
OTHERS]
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & ... on 8 October, 2003
Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi vs Gangumalla Appa Rao (Since Dead) By Lrs. on 9 May, 2019
[Emphasis supplied]
[(2019) 6 SCC 233 - Beemaneni Maha
Lakshmi vs. Gangumalla Appa Rao (since
dead) by Legal Representatives.]
K.Praksh vs B.R.Sampath Kumar on 22 September, 2014
In a recent judgment dated 22.9.2014 in Civil
Appeal No. 9047 of 2014 entitled K. Prakash vs. B.R.
Sampath Kumar, this Court observed that: