Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1310 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999

Sri N Narayanappa S/O Marisonnappa vs Sri Pillappa on 21 September, 2024

30. The defendant's failure to provide any evidence to refute the plaintiff's claims or to demonstrate why specific performance should be denied leaves the plaintiff's case unchallenged. The fact that the plaintiff has paid the full consideration and has been placed in possession strengthens his position. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to testify casts doubt on the legitimacy of his defense. As the Supreme Court has noted in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (supra), when a party with personal knowledge of the facts chooses not to appear as a witness, the Court may draw an adverse inference that the case set up by such a party is not true. In this case, the defendant's 30 refusal to testify leads to the presumption that his claims about the misuse of blank signed papers are unsubstantiated.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dilip Kumar Mishra vs Deo Kumar Mishra on 15 May, 2026

25. The facts of the present case is in complete consonance with the law laid down in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (supra) and the provision of Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and Order XIX Rules 1 to 3 CPC, which collectively underscore that pleadings and affidavits, in the absence of substantive proof, do not constitute evidence in the eye of law. The evidentiary value of assertions made by a party stands materially diminished when such party avoids cross-examination and fails to produce independent and reliable corroboration.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.M.Kistamma,Died Per Lrs A2 To 6 And 2 ... vs Gandaiah, Malakpet, And 3 Others on 17 June, 2025

23. If the plaintiff is alive, competent and capable of deposing, she must enter into the witness box herself. Her husband can only depose as a witness if he had independent personal knowledge. If he was supporting her version, without being a party or attorney holder, his testimony has limited evidentiary value. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff for not entering into the witness box as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 12 (2005) 2 SCC 217 29 Dr.GRR, J ccca_169_1994 Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Another (cited supra). As such, this point is answered accordingly against the appellant - plaintiff.
Telangana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Achala Jain vs Sanjay Ahuja Prop Of M/S A.B Textiles on 3 June, 2025

73. Since the plaintiff has sought to recover an amount of Rs. 91,38,34/- along with interest and cost of the suit, so, in the light of the law laid down by their lordship of Supreme Court of India in Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 573 (supra), it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to appear in the witness box and to state her own case on oath. But, the plaintiff did not appear in the witness box to state her case and she did not offer herself to be cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex court of India and as per provision of Section 119(g) of BSA, this court is inclined to hold that the case set by plaintiff is not correct.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Srisailam vs V. Krishna Murthy And Ors. on 20 November, 2002

102. It is axiomatic that the burden of proof lies on such person who "asserts existence of relevant facts". It is also axiomatic that Hindu joint family is not presumed to have any joint family properties and the burden is on the person who asserts that the properties owned are joint family properties by leading convincing and cogent evidence. In a case of this nature, where Krishna Murthy and Koteswara Rao allege that plaint-A, B and C properties are joint family properties of Buggaiah and his sons, and there cannot be any denial - indeed not denied or disputed; that the burden lies on them. Krishna Murthy and Koteswara Rao, are two plaintiffs in two different suits. Who should produce best evidence possible ? The learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments. Subramanya Sastry v. Lakshminarasamma, Krishna Kumar v. Kayastha Pathshala, and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (supra).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 50 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Acting Through Its Authorised ... vs Delex Cargo India Pvt. Ltd on 21 January, 2023

66. Supreme Court in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. vs Hartar Singh Sangha (supra) reiterated the well recognized legal position stated in the case of Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573, that where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.
Delhi District Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shailsuta Logistrics Pvt Ltd vs Emami Ltd on 17 July, 2025

" Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another, (1999) Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:47 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 16/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 3 SCC 573 observed at page 583 SCC that "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct".
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next