Ramalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 2012
appeal. K.V.Subbiah Mudaliar after entering appearance, produced ancient documents in proof of his right of fishery and contended that the 1st Respondent
Search Results Page
Search Results
11 - 20 of 164 (0.36 seconds)Nur Islam Mondal vs Kasem Ali Mondal & Ors on 8 February, 2012
Court. What was called for, was an
independent appraisal of the various documents produced by the plaintiff in
the light of the pleadings ... more satisfactory manner."
"12. Similarly, when there is an ancient document of 1875 that is being
relied upon in support of the claim
Kasilingam vs Rajavannian on 10 October, 2012
were marked. The witness's document was marked as Ex.X1. Twice the Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report with sketch ... Predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether ancient documents do not have evidentiary value?
2. Whether anterior documents filed by plaintiff
Sri M Chandregouda S/O. Sri Narashimha ... vs Smt J Shantha on 11 June, 2012
Sri M Chandregouda S/O. Sri Narashimha ... vs Smt J Shantha on 11 June, 2012
Jaimal Singh (Through Lrs) And Others vs Amar Nath (Through Lrs) And Others on 26 December, 2012
respective claims could be understood by following
the trail brought through ancient documents and revenue entries.
Ex.A1 to Ex. A3 represent the oldest
Sri Madappa S/O Late Marajogi Haladappa vs Sri V S R Holla S/O V S Holla on 20 September, 2012
which he has
also produced documents contrary to the pleadings and
the documents placed on record, the courts below have
committed an error in decreeing ... come to the conclusion that they being ancient
documents aged more than 30 years by virtue of S.90 of
the Indian Evidence
Sokkalingam vs Muthaiah on 7 November, 2012
impugned the genuineness
of Ex.A.17 which is an ancient document of more than 30 years within the meaning
of Section ... document for comparison purpose. There could be no hard and
fast rule that the document to be taken as a sample document for comparison
should
Ramakrishnan Ezhuthassan vs Aravindakshan Ezhuthassan(Died) on 21 June, 2012
right in favour of the
original plaintiff as per Ext.A3, document No.2342 of 1973. Thus original
plaintiff claimed to be the absolute ... parties from the difficulty of examining witnesses in
respect of ancient documents where the witnesses may not be available, but,
having regard to the fact
Ramayee Ammal vs Ramasamy Gounder on 20 March, 2012
being his adopted son has been mentioned in some of the ancient documents, at
a time, when there was no controversy between the parties ... Nachimuthu has been described as son of Thevanna. They are ancient documents.
They came into being at a time when there was no controversy between
George vs Dasamma Jnanamma on 7 March, 2012
illegal to deny the legal presumption
to the ancient document of Ext.A2.
(5) Is it not illegal to compare a plan which