Dr.Anurag Vimal
24 September 2009 at 04:49
Dear lawyer,
my friend`s official father looked after him but he died many years back and the biological father or mother has not looked after him .biological father is married to somebody else and has 2 legal sons.
now he avoids my friend, and does not even talk.
Is there a law in india wherein a case can be put in the courts for some right INCLUDING property rights in case of illegitimate son who is also mentally disturbed and has even left medical career,started drinking,has depression and is frustated.riven
TANMOY
24 September 2009 at 02:20
Hi, Here is the problem for our experts-
1. A lady had taken a home as tenant and living there for last two years and handed over her ornaments to the landlord who had issued a cheque of 12 lac rs for the purpose of purchasing those ornaments. The cheque was bounced and the lady issued a notice of demand under 138 N.I. act.The landlord told the lady to vacate the house. The lady refused and went ahead with securing an interim INJUNCTION from the court of Civil Judge and a complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class for cheque bounce.
2. The husband of that lady had issued a cheque of Rs. 1 lac to the landlord for paying rent arrears but as the landlord took a loan of Rs. Six Lac from the husband of that lady, the landlord issued a cheque of Rs. five lac to the husband of that lady AFTER DEDUCTING THE HOUSE RENT. The cheque which was issued by the husband, 1 lac rs, was bounced as well as the cheque which was issued by the landlord, 5 lac rs, was also bounced. And ofcourse, a complaint case under 138 N.I act is pending against the landlord.
NO AGREEMENT IS IN EXISTENCE IN BETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND TENANT REGARDING RENT AGREEMENT, PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS, PAYING OF ARREAR AND THE HANDLOAN.
3. Now, the landlord is claiming before the Civil Judge that the lady is not paying rent for last two years and the cheque of 1 lac rs towards house rent was bounced and therefore, the injunction should be vacated.
IN OUR POSSESSION-
1. A CHEQUE OF 12 LAC AGAINST ORNAMENT-PURCHASHE, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD AND GOT BOUNCED.
2. A CHEQUE OF 5 LAC TOWARDS HANDLOAN.
PLEASE MIND NO AGREEMENT IS THERE EXCEPT CHEQUES.
THEY HAVE A CHEQUE OF 1 LAC RS WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE HUSBAND OF THAT LADY AND WHICH GOT BOUNCED.
What plea could be taken in Court so that the Interim Injunction will not be vacated and perpetual injunction could be obtained?
The family does not want to stay in that home but not want to vacate it until and unless the money will be recovered.riven
ABC.......
24 September 2009 at 01:13
If wife has filed case under DV Act and court has ordered and provided residence to her. Is it compulsory for wife to stay in that house for full time even if she doesnot feel secure there. Are there any chances of filing complaint my husband and in-laws if wife is not staying there and reversal of order by court. Plz advise.
riven
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar
24 September 2009 at 00:51
Dear friends ,
When a certificate of 10 and 10 + 2 is not recognized by any competent board of education but the student has now obtained B.A. degree. What will be his fate
1) if he applies for a post for which B.A. is essential qualification ? can his candidature be rejected by the employer or selection board on the ground that his B.A. degree is also invalid as his 10 and 10 +2 certificate was not recognized.?
2) if he has applied for a post for which essential qualification is high school or intermediate, and he has been rejected on the ground that certificate of his essential qualification is not recognized one, can he successfully contend that since he has obtained a recognized B.A. degree , his earlier certificates can not be tested on the recognition criteria ?
riven
Atish
24 September 2009 at 00:27
In The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 who has the custody of the son aged 12 years. Can the father if he is rightly the custodian change schools without the mother's permission for the betterment of the son.riven
Saj
23 September 2009 at 21:52
What would be the procedures, indian IT companies come upon while selling software services and products to outside clients ?
Is Software Technology Park (STP) registration required for all IT companies exporting software ?riven
rajvinder singh
23 September 2009 at 20:37
SIR PLEASE TELL IN IN APPEAL FROM STATUS QUO GRANTED BY LOWER COURT ,RESPONDENT FIND THE OLD PHOTOGRAPHS OF GALI/STREET WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN BEFORE LOWER COURT.
STATUS QUO WAS GRANTED BY THE LOWER COURT ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF LOCAL COMMISSIONER WHICH HAS FAVOURED THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
NOW THE APPEALLANT HAS APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LOWER CIVIL COURT
SIR PLS TELL ME NOW AT THIS STABE WHEN NO EVIDENCE HAS TAKEN PLACE BEFORE LOWER COURT WHAT SHOULD I DO FOR PLACING THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON JUDICIAL FILE BEFORE APPELLATE COURT.DOES I PLACE APPLICATION UNDER THIS ORDER 41 R 27OF SIMPLY SHOW THESE SNAPS WHICH ARE IN MY FAVOUR TO THE JUDGE
riven
PALNITKAR V.V.
23 September 2009 at 20:07
Whether appeal filed by a power of attorney is maintenable? Is there any ruling on this point?riven
Shivasurya
23 September 2009 at 16:46
Dear Experts, my client executed sale deed in favour of one X. As per the sale deed, a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- to be given to my client as sale consideration. But the said X draw an account payee cheque in favour of my client and the X made endorsement of cancellation of cross and encashed the money as my client recived Rs.10,00,000/- as bearer of the cheque by forging the signature of my client with the collusion of the bank. Immediately my client lodged criminal complaint against X and the bank, but it was closed as mistake of facts. My querry is is the bank can pay money to the bearer of the cheque for highvalue cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- after the drawee himself cancelled the cross of cheque. What is the relief for my innocent client.riven
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
AN IMPORTANT CASE SC CITATION ON VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL STAMP
AN IMPORTANT CASE SC CITATION ON VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER
THIRUVENGADA V NAVNEETHMAL
Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Thiruvengada Pillai
RESPONDENT:
Navaneethammal & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008
BENCH:
R. V. Raveendran & P.Sathasivam
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific
performance - OS No.290/1980 on the file of District Munsiff, Tindivanam.
Pleadings
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant
(Adilakshmi) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him under an
agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, and
received Rs.2,000/- as advance. She agreed to execute a sale deed by
receiving the balance consideration of Rs.1,000/- within three months.
Possession of the suit property was delivered to him, under the said
agreement. He issued a notice dated 14.2.1980 calling upon the first
defendant to receive the balance price and execute the sale deed. The first
defendant sent a reply denying the agreement. To avoid performing the
agreement of sale, the first defendant executed a nominal sale deed in regard
to the suit property in favour of the second defendant (first respondent
herein), who was her close relative. The said sale was neither valid nor
binding on him. On the said averments, he sought specific performance of
the agreement of sale, against the defendant, alleging that he was ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract.
3. The defendants denied the allegation that the first defendant had
executed an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 in favour of the plaintiff or
that she had delivered possession of the suit property to him. They
contended that plaintiff had concocted and forged the document with the
help of his henchmen to defraud the defendants. They claimed that the first
defendant had executed a valid sale deed dated 11.2.1980 in favour of the
second defendant and had delivered possession of the suit property to her;
and that the second defendant had put up a hut in the schedule property and
was actually residing therein. The second defendant raised an additional
contention that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore, the
sale in her favour was valid.
4. During the pendency of the suit first defendant died, and the third
defendant (second respondent herein) was impleaded as her legal
representative, who adopted the written statement of the second defendant.
Issues and the Judgment
5. On the said pleadings, three issues were framed by the trial court : (i)
whether the agreement put forth by the plaintiff was true or concocted ? (ii)
whether the second defendant had purchased the suit property for valid
consideration ? and (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of
specific performance ? The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the
scribe of the agreement (Ramaswami Pillai) as PW-2 and an attesting
witness to the sale agreement (Venkatesha Pillai) as PW-3. The agreement
of sale was exhibited as Ex. A-1. The notice and reply were marked as Ex.
A2 and A4. The second defendant, (purchaser of the site), gave evidence as
DW-1 and the third defendant, who was also a witness to the sale deed dated
11.2.1980, was examined as DW-2. The sale deed dated 11.2.1980 executed
by first defendant in favour of second defendant was marked as Ex.B2 and
previous title deed was exhibited as Ex. B4. The plaintiff and his witnesses
gave evidence that the sale agreement was duly executed by first defendant
in favour of plaintiff. The defendants gave evidence about the sale in favour
of second defendant and denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour
of plaintiff.
6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984. It heriven