title and possession of the suit property based on
the ancient documents neglecting the recent documents from
the year 1979 sale deed, 1984 exchange deed ... documents. As the defendants did not challenge the
order allowing the additional documents and the plaintiff has made larger plea
touching upon those documents
title and possession of the suit property based
on the ancient documents neglecting the recent documents
from the year 1979 sale deed, 1984 exchange deed ... documents. As the defendants did not challenge the
order allowing the additional documents and the plaintiff has made larger plea
touching upon those documents
case of
private documents, by giving rise to a presumption of
genuineness, in respect of certain documents that have reached
a certain age. The period ... appeal. Thus, the said section
deals with the admissibility of ancient documents, dispensing
with proof as would be required, in the usual course of events
temple and also admitted the document dated 18.07.1968 and he
stated that there was no document available to prove that the temple was
constructed prior ... feigned ignorance
about the material questions. He did not see any ancient document to
show that existence of temple prior to the year 1968. From
genuineness of a
document (i.e., existence or handwriting), not truth of contents.
Therefore, besides truth, the contents of the documents also have ... anonymous.
Generally there is no presumption about recitals
in ancient document, but in special
circumstances a recital of consideration, legal
necessity, etc., may be presumed
stated that the said Will was a forged and fabricated
document.
5. Issues were framed on 19.05.2017, whereafter
parties led their respective evidence. When ... said Will. It was averred that Will dated
17.11.1979 was an ancient document and its production by the
plaintiffs was ruled out in the face
declaration and cancellation of any document
was three years from the date of execution. The initial document executed
by defendant No.1 in favour ... deed
document No.763 of 1991. It was not only an ancient document, but also a
document conferring rights in favour of vendees nearly three
ancestral property. But now they have produced the
unimpeachable ancient documents of title Exs.R1 and R4.
12. The respondents learned counsel then states ... ancestral property. But now the
temple have produced the unimpeachable ancient documents of title Exs.R1
and R4 before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Inams
cannot be in dispute that a village map is an
ancient document which indicated the survey numbers and the
natural elements in that particular village ... mind that the reason why a village map was prepared in
ancient times was for a different context
Supreme Court has stated in the case of
ancient documents, the courts should be
cautious to guard against warping of the issue
by reference
