The appeal is allowed, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside and that passed by the trial Court on April 24, 1964, is restored. The plaintiffs to pay the costs of defendant No. 1 throughout and bear their own. The rest of the re
The court held that the marriage of a mother with a person of a different religion is not a ground to take away the custody of the child. Mother's affection and care cannot be substituted.
The review court held that the Mahaddanama was genuine, valid and for consideration, but it remanded the case to the lower appellate Court for deciding the issues regarding the partition of the suit. The lower appellate Court held that there was a pa
The Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances saw the paramount welfare of both the minor children as they are born out of the wedlock of late Jitendra Pal Singh with two different ladies and the grandmother being the only common factor whose gen
The Honorable court after considering all the material facts and the law governing the rights of the parents for custody of minor children upheld the decision rendered by the trial Court as just and proper. The appeal was dismissed.
The Judge concurred with the view taken of the below courts and affirmed that the judgment and decree passed in the case and dismissed the appeal. A there was no appearance for the respondents, there was no order for costs.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal & upheld the decision of the HC. The Supreme Court held “the suspicious circumstance appears to be that when the Will was being executed, the thumb impression over the alleged Will was also taken by the benefici
Ajit Panwar is required to furnish security for payment of costs as he wrongly acted as the Power of Attorney of the old lady who couldn't give consent.
enunciation in matters where one's own interest is affected is fine but where power is given to protect the interests of others against measures which are not allowed in our Constitution would be fraught with inadequate consequences.