Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Irrelevant affidavit paragraphs excluded in testamentary suit; Rule 121(5), 121(38), Order 18 rr.2/4, Sec 151 CPC applied</h1> <h3>Rajendra Singh and Ors. Versus Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh Kushwaha and Ors.</h3> The HC held paragraphs 3, 4 and 13-17 of the defendant's affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief irrelevant to the issues in the testamentary suit and ... - Issues Involved:1. Relevance of paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief filed by the defendant.2. Maintainability of the application filed by the plaintiff for striking off parts of the affidavit.3. Admissibility of evidence under Order 18 Rule 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.4. Application of Rule 121(5) and 121(38) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.5. Application of Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1871.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Relevance of Paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the Affidavit:The plaintiff argued that paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the affidavit were irrelevant to the issues of the will's valid execution and the deceased's state of mind at the time of execution. Paragraphs 3 and 4 discussed the deceased's residential address, which was deemed irrelevant to the probate petition. Paragraphs 13 to 17 raised disputes about the title of certain properties, which the court cannot decide in testamentary proceedings. The court agreed, stating, 'this court cannot decide the title in respect of the properties of the deceased or any third party in this testamentary suit,' and thus, these paragraphs were not relevant to the issues framed.2. Maintainability of the Application:The defendant contended that the application for striking off parts of the affidavit was not maintainable and should have been filed as a chamber summons under Rule 121(5) and 125(38) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. The court held that Rule 121(5) applies to pleadings and not to evidence, and Rule 121(38) gives discretionary power to the court to hear matters in chambers. The court concluded that 'section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, gives inherent powers to the court to strike off the irrelevant evidence at this stage.'3. Admissibility of Evidence under Order 18 Rule 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:The plaintiff relied on Order 18 Rule 2, which states that evidence must support the issues a party is bound to prove. The court emphasized that 'the court cannot permit the party to lead an irrelevant evidence or evidence not related to the issue even in affidavit filed by way of examination in chief in lieu of oral evidence.' The court further clarified that Order 18 Rule 4 must be read with Rule 2, and irrelevant evidence should not be allowed.4. Application of Rule 121(5) and 121(38) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules:The court found that Rule 121(5) does not apply to evidence but to pleadings, and Rule 121(38) allows the court to hear matters in chambers at its discretion. Therefore, these rules did not apply to the plaintiff's application for striking off parts of the affidavit.5. Application of Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1871:The defendant argued that the court should decide the admissibility of evidence at the final arguments stage under Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court disagreed, stating that 'the court is empowered to consider whether to admit the evidence which would be relevant and not otherwise' at the stage when the party proposes to give evidence. The court concluded that it could strike off irrelevant evidence at this stage.Conclusion:The court ordered that the depositions made in paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief dated 18th March, 2013, were not relevant to the issues and would not be read in evidence. The plaintiff was not required to cross-examine the defendant on these paragraphs. The court directed both parties to proceed with evidence on the remaining paragraphs of the affidavit expeditiously and disposed of the application with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found