Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Code of civil procedure

BINOD PATHAK & ORS. versus SHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Where advocates appearing for parties knew of deaths of certain defendants during pendency of the first appeal and failed to inform the court and other parties as required by Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, equity precludes those parties from taking the benefit of abatement under Order XXII Rule 4; the High Court erred in treating Rule 10A as effectively otiose and in allowing abatement to be invoked in such circumstances—impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration consistent with Rule 10A and Rule 4.

Source excerpt

  • Abatement
  • Order xxii rule 10a cpc
  • Duty of pleader to inform court of death
  • Non-substitution of legal heirs
  • Doctrine of clean hands
  • Latin maxims on rights and advantage
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure

ANGADI CHANDRANNA versus SHANKAR & ORS.

The High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and framing a non-substantial question of law under Section 100/103 CPC; the First Appellate Court had considered the evidence and plausibly concluded that Defendant No.1 purchased the suit property in 1989 with funds including a loan from DW3, and plaintiffs failed to prove a joint family nucleus or that the purchase was from joint family funds; consequently the suit property is self-acquired and the sale to Defendant No.2 is valid.

Source excerpt

  • Property
  • Ancestral property
  • Self-acquired property
  • Joint family property
  • Sale deed
  • Partition deed
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act, 1881

KAPIL KUMAR versus RAJ KUMAR

The High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact on execution of the promissory note; the plaintiff proved the defendant's signature (by PW2) and execution/receipt (by PW3); non-examination of the attesting witness was not fatal in the circumstances; the presumption of consideration under Section 118 NI Act applied and was not successfully rebutted; accordingly the High Court's order setting aside the decree was quashed and the trial and first appellate court decrees restoring recovery were upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Promissory note
  • Presumption of consideration
  • Second appeal
  • Concurrent findings of fact
  • Handwriting expert evidence
Read case analysis
U.p. encumbered estates act, 1934

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HARDOI versus RAMA KRISHNA NARAIN AND OTHERS.

In proceedings under section 11(2) of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act strict technical rules of impleading under the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply; creditors who did not take an active part in the proceedings need not be impleaded as necessary parties, and the High Court's certificate under section 110 CPC could be sustained despite errors in the stated grounds. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the matter remanded for rehearing with liberty to the High Court to give notice to any creditors it considers necessary.

Source excerpt

  • Necessary parties
  • Impleading of parties
  • Section 11(2) u.p. encumbered estates act
  • Section 110 cpc (certificate)
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.