Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 23

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 23---Gift---Proof---Judgment of Appellate Court---Scope---Suit for declaration was filed by the respondent alleging that her father/deceased was paralyzed and was living with the petitioner (only son), hence, the deceased was under the influence of the petitioner and she sought 1/5th share out of the estate of her father---Suit was concurrently decreed---Petitioner contended that Appellate Court had not complied with the rules for passing the in appeal and violated the rules framed under O. XLI, C.P.C.; that both the Courts below had not determined the time of deceaseds death and also had not considered the statement of witness who categorically stated that the deceased had died about 07 years after attestation of impugned gift mutations; that no particular fraud was pointed out; that question of misrepresentation / non-delivery of possession had not been challenged/ proved; that the deceased predecessor was not suffering from any disease and he was not mentally paralyzed; and that entries of mutations were duly incorporated in record of rights---Validity---First appellate court had discussed all the relevant factors which were available in the evidence of the parties even the documents had been discussed by the first Appellate Court while deciding the point of controversy in between the parties---Appellate Court had to decide the controversy between the parties and there was no need to decide each and every issue by the Appellate Court---Where Appellate Court recorded its findings on all the points raised before it without discussing the issues separately, it could not be said to have committed any illegality/error---Appellate Court had critically examined all the evidence on record, i.e. oral/ documentary evidence and had recorded the on the basis of the same---Appellate Court had appraised the mandate of law, thus, the impugned was qualified to be called ---As fraud had been alleged, it was the responsibility of the petitioner being beneficiary to prove that whether gift mutation was validly sanctioned---Respondents were real sisters of the petitioner and were privileged for being Parda Nasheen…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492