All SC files are extracted by list.files function.
scfile <- list.files(path = "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files",full.names = T)
print(scfile) [1] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43026.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43027.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43028.pdf"
[4] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43030.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43031.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43035.pdf"
[7] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43041.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43042.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43043.pdf"
[10] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43045.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43048.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43053.pdf"
[13] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43054.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43055.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43056.pdf"
[16] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43061.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43062.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43063.pdf"
[19] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43064.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43065.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43066.pdf"
[22] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43067.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43068.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43091.pdf"
[25] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43380.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43381.pdf" "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43382.pdf"
[28] "./Judgments _ Supreme Court of India_files/43383.pdf"There are 28 files that will be processed. I have saved the DTMs of the above 28 PDF files by running runsc_tagging() in a variable that you can load here. It takes around 5 minutes to complete tagging for the 28 PDF files. Hence it is best to load the saved DTMs using load(“dtmsc”). This has already been done for you.
We have to run the old citings() function across all the DTMS.
Note I am using the lines = 3 parameter, which means 3 sentences per extract will be outputted. The first sentence being that contains the Vs separator. The output will be stored in a variable cit3. You can create more than one outputs using different values of lines (from 2 to 5). The run_cit takes around 30 seconds to run so have patience if you have to re run it with different values of lines.
run_cit(dtm_list = dtmsc,lines = 3) -> cit3The cit3 variable created above has 3 components:
Listing the first 10 citations:
cit3$citations[1:20] [1] NA "L. Rs. & Anr. vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors"
[3] "Binapani Paul vs. Pratima Ghosh & Ors" "Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh"
[5] "this Court in Kanakarathanammal vs. S.Loganatha Mudaliar & Anr" "Siddalingamma & Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy"
[7] "Tej Kumar vs. Kirpal Singh" "Environmental Law v. Union of India"
[9] "Amba Bai and others vs. Gopal and others" "Budh Ram and others vs. Bansi and others"
[11] "Matindu Prakash Deceased by L.R.s vs. Bachan Singh and others" "the State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram AIR"
[13] "Sri Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand" "Ramagya Prasad Gupta vs. Murli Prasad"
[15] "Harihar Singh vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh" "Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta AIR"
[17] "P.V. Hemalatha vs. Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda and Another" "Lrs. And Others vs. Chandrika and Others"
[19] "Jayanti Devi v. Chand Mal Agrawa" "Tej Kaur v. Kirpal Singh" Number of sentences per extract = 3 Printing the first 20:
cit3$extracts[1:10] [1] NA
[2] "Rs. & Anr. vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors.1 which may be usefully extracted below :- “6. It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through."
[3] "The reiteration of the aforesaid principles has been made in Binapani Paul vs. Pratima Ghosh & Ors.2. The relevant part of the views expressed (Paras 26 and 27) may be profitably recollected at this stage. “26. The learned counsel for both the parties have relied on a decision of this Court in Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh wherein it has been held that the true character of a transaction is governed by the intention of the person who contributed the 2 2007 (6)"
[4] "The learned counsel for both the parties have relied on a decision of this Court in Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh wherein it has been held that the true character of a transaction is governed by the intention of the person who contributed the 2 2007 (6) SCC 100 Page 10 11 purchase money and the question as to what his intention was, has to be decided by: (a) surrounding circumstances, (b) relationship of the parties, (c) motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction, and (d) their subsequent conduct. 27. All the four factors stated may have to be considered cumulatively."
[5] "In fact the aforesaid view taken by the High Court finds adequate support from the views expressed by this Court in Kanakarathanammal vs. S.Loganatha Mudaliar & Anr.3 the relevant part of which is extracted below : “It is true that the actual management of the property was done by the appellant's father; but that would inevitably be so having regard to the fact that in ordinary Hindu families, the property belonging exclusively to a female member would also be normally managed by the Manager of the family; so that the fact that appellant's mother did not take actual part in the management of the 3 AIR 1965 SC 271 Page 12 13 property would not materially affect the appellant's case that the property belonged to her mother. The rent was paid by the tenants and accepted by the appellant's father; but that, again, would be consistent with what ordinarily happens in such matters in an undivided Hindu family. If the property belongs to the wife and the husband manages the property on her behalf, it would be idle to contend that the management by the husband of the properties is inconsistent with the title of his wife to the said properties."
[6] "vs. Gokulananda Panda & Ors.5, this Court went on to further dilate on the matter in the following terms : “When the plaintiff relies on oral evidence in support of the claim that he was adopted by the adoptive father in accordance with the Hindu rites, and it is not supported by any registered document to establish that such an adoption had really and as a matter of fact taken place, the court has to act with a great deal of caution and circumspection. Be it realized that setting up a spurious adoption is not less frequent than concocting a spurious will, and 4 AIR 1959 SC 504 [Kishori Lal Vs."
[7] "Reliance in this behalf has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Siddalingamma & Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy1. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. While there can be no manner of doubt that mutation entries do not conclusively establish title, we remain 1 2001 (8) SCC"
[8] "In this connection learned counsel referred the decision of this Court in Tej Kumar vs. Kirpal Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 119. It was further submitted that even if the provisions of Letters Patent Act are invoked the same cannot override the provisions of Section 98 CPC. In this connection learned counsel referred decisions in P.V. Hemalatha v. 14 Page 14 Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda, (2002) 5 SCC 548 and Centre For Environmental Law v. Union of India, (2010)12 SCC 303. It was further contended that even if Clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court which has been adopted for the A.P."
[9] "In this connection learned counsel referred decisions in P.V. Hemalatha v. 14 Page 14 Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda, (2002) 5 SCC 548 and Centre For Environmental Law v. Union of India, (2010)12 SCC 303. It was further contended that even if Clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court which has been adopted for the A.P. High Court is held applicable, nonetheless, in the present case, since no points of agreement have at all been formulated for consideration by the two learned judges who had heard the appeal, reference to the 3rd judge was, therefore, clearly incompetent. 15. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellant raised another point with regard to abatement of the appeal pending before the High Court on the ground inter alia that one of the respondents i.e., Respondent No. 12 died on 21.12.2010 during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court."
[10] "31. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellant pressed these two applications relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Matindu Prakash (Deceased) by L.Rs. vs. Bachan Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC 2029; Amba Bai and others vs. Gopal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 25 Page 25 570; Budh Ram and others vs. Bansi and others, (2010) Vol. 11 SCC 476. 32. In the case of Matindu Prakash (Deceased) by L.R.s vs. Bachan Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC 2029, when the appeal was pending in this Court, it revealed that two of the appellants died and no step was taken to bring the heirs and legal representatives of those appellants on the record. The question, therefore, that fell for consideration was whether appeal abated as a whole so as to entail a dismissal of the entire suit." These are likely containing the summary of the cited case. This is a subset of the above extracts but the ones that contain regex taken from the file ksummary.txt
cit3$important[1:10] [1] "Rs. & Anr. vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors.1 which may be usefully extracted below :- “6. It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through."
[2] "The learned counsel for both the parties have relied on a decision of this Court in Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh wherein it has been held that the true character of a transaction is governed by the intention of the person who contributed the 2 2007 (6) SCC 100 Page 10 11 purchase money and the question as to what his intention was, has to be decided by: (a) surrounding circumstances, (b) relationship of the parties, (c) motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction, and (d) their subsequent conduct. 27. All the four factors stated may have to be considered cumulatively."
[3] "In the case of Budh Ram and others vs. Bansi and others, (2010) Vol. 11 SCC 476, this Court after considering series of judgments rendered by this Court in the State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram, (AIR 1962) SC 89, Sri Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427, Ramagya Prasad Gupta vs. Murli Prasad, (1973) 2 SCC 9 and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 72 held as under:- “17."
[4] "11 SCC 476, this Court after considering series of judgments rendered by this Court in the State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram, (AIR 1962) SC 89, Sri Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427, Ramagya Prasad Gupta vs. Murli Prasad, (1973) 2 SCC 9 and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 72 held as under:- “17. Therefore, the law on the issue stands crystalLised to the effect that as to whether non-substitution of LRs of the respondent-defendants would abate the appeal in toto or only qua the deceased respondent-defendants, depends upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case."
[5] "Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427, Ramagya Prasad Gupta vs. Murli Prasad, (1973) 2 SCC 9 and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 72 held as under:- “17. Therefore, the law on the issue stands crystalLised to the effect that as to whether non-substitution of LRs of the respondent-defendants would abate the appeal in toto or only qua the deceased respondent-defendants, depends upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case. Where each one of the parties has an independent and distinct right of his own, not interdependent upon one or the other, nor the parties have conflicting interests inter se, the appeal may abate only qua the deceased respondent."
[6] "In the case of Harihar Singh vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh, AIR 1975 SC 733 = (1976) 1 SCC 212, this Court observed: “32. The important point to note about this litigation is that each of the reversioners is entitled to his own specific share. He could have sued for his own share and got a decree for his share. That is why five Title Suits Nos. 53 and 61 of 1934 and 20, 29 and 41 of 1935 were filed in respect of the same estate."
[7] "Others vs. Chandrika and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 303. 41. Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :- “98. Decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges. (1) Where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges."
[8] "The amended Sub- 45 Page 45 section (3) of Section 98 was considered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Dhanaraju vs. Motilal Daga and Another, AIR 1929 (Mad.) 641 (F.B.). The Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in the case of Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 (Patna) 154, considered the similar question and observed:- “The view which I have expressed above is supported by a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Dhanaraju v. Bala-kissendas Motilal : AIR 1929 Mad 641 FB) : ILR Mad 563, and by two decisions of this Court; one reported in Debi Prasad Pandey v. Gaudham Rai : AIR 1933 Pat 67 at p. 69 : ILR Pat 772 and the other in Rajnarain v."
[9] "The Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in the case of Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 (Patna) 154, considered the similar question and observed:- “The view which I have expressed above is supported by a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Dhanaraju v. Bala-kissendas Motilal : AIR 1929 Mad 641 FB) : ILR Mad 563, and by two decisions of this Court; one reported in Debi Prasad Pandey v. Gaudham Rai : AIR 1933 Pat 67 at p. 69 : ILR Pat 772 and the other in Rajnarain v. Saligram ILR Pat 332. Clause 28 governs not merely Clause 10, but also Clause 11 of the Letters Patent which ordains that this Court is a Court of Appeal from the Civil Courts of the State of Bihar. Clause 28 of the Letters Patent being wider in scope than section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because it covers points of fact as well as points of law, a reference to a third Judge in the present appeal is not incompetent merely because there has been no difference of opinion between Sinha and S. N."
[10] "In the case of Rulia Devi and others vs. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1979 Patna 115, a Bench of the Patna High Court while considering the provision of Section 98 CPC vis a vis clause 28 of the Letters Patent held:- “It will be observed that the Letters Patent does not confine the point of difference to a question of law and since it is not subject to any limitation mentioned in Section 98 of the Civil P. C., it must be held that a difference between the Judges constituting a Division Bench, for the purpose of reference to a third Judge, can be on a question of fact also. However, in the present case, the learned Judges did not jointly formulate the points of difference, after delivering their separate judgments. They have in the order-sheet merely stated that as they differed the case should be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing it before a third Judge." Let me know the precisions and recall of the important list.
- Papa