LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label TRANSFER OF ACT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TRANSFER OF ACT. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011

how to assess the evidence - Here again, the High Court failed to appreciate all the material facts and circumstances. The High Court thought that the electricity bills showing no consumption of electricity for the period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit were of no consequence because the bills for even the period prior to the period of six months preceding the suit showed no consumption of electricity. The High Court overlooked the fact that even though in terms of Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act, the plaintiff was required to prove non-user of the shop premises for a period of six 18 months immediately preceding the filing of the suit, as a matter of fact, the case of the plaintiff was that defendant No.1 was not using the shop and keeping it closed for a much longer period starting from or about June, 1976. Thus, the bills produced by defendant no.1 showing no consumption of electricity in fact supported the case of the plaintiff. The High Court also overlooked that later on in the year 1979 defendant no.1 had got the electricity connection to the suit shop restored and thereafter the electricity bills were showing normal consumption of electricity. The High Court also overlooked that defendant no.1 had resorted to many falsehoods in his attempt to wriggle out of facts and circumstances established by the plaintiff's evidence. 22. In the same way on the issue of subletting the High Court was dismissive of the finding of the appellate court observing as follows:- "On scrutinizing the record, it is clearly found that reliance has been placed on the testimony of the plaintiff's power of attorney holder and panchnama prepared by the Court Commissioner. What is found by the Court Commissioner is only some milk cans in the suit premises. Some of the milk cans carried the name of defendant No.2 and also some sweet boxes. From this mere fact, a very serious presumption of the exclusive possession of the defendant No.2 has been drawn by both the courts below. The finding of the exclusive possession must be based on evidence and that factum of possession must be proved. From this only, no prudent man can infer the presence of a third party." 19 23. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court

›
                                                                                REPORTABLE                        THE SUPREME COURT OF I...
Tuesday, February 1, 2011

A CONDITIONAL GIFT DEED - WITH REVERSION ON HAPPENING OF CERTAIN EVENTS IS VALID

›
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO     APPEAL SUIT No.150 OF 1991 AND TRANSFER A.S.No.1474 OF 2001           29-12-2010 Dr K.Subbai...