Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
Patel Jayantibhai Mangaldas vs Patel Maheshkumar Joitaram on 3 February, 2025 cites

Ujagar Singh vs Mst. Jeo on 23 April, 1959

15.In the case of Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo reported in AIR 1959 SC 1041, this Court has held that the ordinary rule is that all customs general or otherwise have to be proved, but under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872 nothing need to be proved of which the Court can take judicial notice. It was also held that when a custom has been repeatedly recognized by Courts, it is blended into the law of land and proof of the same would become unnecessary under Section 57 of Evidence Act, 1872.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 38 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Ram Khilawan & Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh 33 ... on 27 March, 2019

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4420/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Neither there was any reason for the learned Judge to disbelieve aforesaid witnesses in absence of their credibility being doubted or challenged. She had therefore submitted that sufficient material had been brought on record, satisfying the Court about compliance of condition as required to be fulfilled as per clause (iv) of section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 4.1. On the legal aspect, the learned advocate had referred to the official website of the Collectorate Mehsana. The history of the constitution of District Mehsana suggests that Mehsana was initially established by Masaji Chawda of Chhabra Dynasty in the year Vikram Sampath 1414. Later on Gaikwad established its main headquarters in Mehsana in 1902. After Independence in 1947, it was merged with the Union of India and it was part of Bombay State later on in 1960 with the division of Bombay State into Maharashtra and Gujarat , Mehsana became part of the State of Gujarat. She had further pointed out that in Mulla's Hindu law, 14th edition at page 550 as referred to in the case of Kodi Rama, Pa Alias Shirke, dead by his heirs and legal representatives, and another versus Narayan Kodi Ba Pa, 1991 (2)SCC 218, it is held that in the Bombay State, a person may be adopted at any age, though he may be older than the one who adopt, and though he may be married and have children, the custom is Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:37:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4420/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined judicially recognised in the Bombay State as regards adoption of a child at any stage. She had therefore submitted that the custom of adopting a major child beyond 15 years is judicially recognised in the Bombay State.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R C Samant - Full Document
1