Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NIRMALA BALA GLLOSE AND ANOTHER versus BALAI CHAND GHQSE AND ORS.

Decided
29 March 1965
Judges listed
K. SUBBA RAO (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Directions issued

Citations

Official
[1965] 3 S.C.R. 550 · 1965 INSC 84
Also cited as
  • AIR 1965 SC 1874 (22 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0346/1965 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Following the judgment of the majority, Appeals Nos. 966 and 968 of 1964 are allowed with costs throughout. It is declared that the propt:rties in deed Ext. 11 (a) were absolutely dedicated in favour of the deity Sri Gopal Jiu. Suits Nos. 79 & 80 of I 954 will therefore stand dismissed. This will, however. be without prejudice to the concession made on behalf of Ninnala that she was benamidar of her husband Balai in respect of the properties scllied by the deed Ext. I l(a). Appeal No. 967 of 1964 is dismissed with costs in favour of Balai.

p. 566, margin C