Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 52 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 59 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
20. Reference to a Pratima Chouwdhary's case
(supra) must be made again for, in this decision three
different stages involved in proving the case of undue
influence has been explained by making a reference to earlier
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhas
Chandr Das Mushib's case (supra) and of the Privy Council
: 16 :
in Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (AIR 1924 PC 60),
it is held in page 238 as below:-
Pratima Chowdhury vs Kalpana Mukherjee & Anr on 10 February, 2014
In fact in Pratima Chowdhury (supra), it is further
held in page 239 as below:-
Subhas Chandra Das Mushib vs Ganga Prosad Das Mushib And Ors on 14 September, 1966
20. Reference to a Pratima Chouwdhary's case
(supra) must be made again for, in this decision three
different stages involved in proving the case of undue
influence has been explained by making a reference to earlier
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhas
Chandr Das Mushib's case (supra) and of the Privy Council
: 16 :
in Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (AIR 1924 PC 60),
it is held in page 238 as below:-
Raghunath Prasad vs Sarju Prasad on 18 December, 1923
7. The three stages for consideration of a case of
undue influence were expounded in Raghunath
Prasad v. Sarju Prasad in the following words: (IA
P.105)
'... In the first place the relations between the parties
to each other must be such that one is in a position to
dominate the will of the other. Once that position is
substantiated the second stage has been reached,
namely, the issue whether the contract has been
induced by undue influence. Upon the determination
of this issue a third point emerges, which is that of the
onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be
unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the
contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie
upon the person who was in a position to dominate
the will of the other."