Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 525 (0.97 seconds)

Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan vs Nawab Kazim Ali Khan on 7 November, 2022

Further, reference was made to Brij Mohan (supra) as well as Birad Mal Singhvi (supra) and it was observed that in the absence of primary material on the basis whereof the age was recorded, it would not be possible to accept the evidence produced therein. While examining the admission register of the school relied upon by the successful candidate therein, it was observed that entries in the said register had been made by one person with two different pens in one sitting. Also, there were other alterations in the said register and hence, no credence could be given to the same. It was observed that forgery in the register had been done in a crude form and the High Court had noticed the same but still proceeded to rely upon the said documents which amounted to a misdirection in law. It was further observed that the respondent therein had special knowledge as to in which school he had studied and should have disclosed the same instead of disclosing the details of his education. He had taken recourse to suppression veri and suggestion falsi and had produced documents which were apparently forged and fabricated. The respondent therein could not 27 have been admitted in New St. Xaviers Junior School, being overaged and the evidence of father of the respondent was not trustworthy. Further, the horoscope filed by the respondent in the said case did not inspire confidence. Further, DW­2 who let in evidence on the horoscope was a bystander who had nothing to do either with the preparation of the horoscope or with the writing thereof and his evidence was not trustworthy and the horoscope could not have been looked into for any purpose whatsoever. Also, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent therein in respect to the occurrence which took place in April, 1995, and the date of birth of the appellant was said to be fourteen years as on that date, and, thus, sixteen years in the year 1996 and was below twenty­five years of age on the date of filing of the nomination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 3 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Arti Kumari vs The Bihar State Election Commission ... on 24 April, 2023

24. The learned counsel further submits that the case on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relies i.e. Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others is also distinguishable in the facts of the present case for the reason that it is not the case of the petitioner that her date of birth is 26.08.1999 and not 14.06.2003 as recorded in her matriculation certificate, rather the petitioner herself is giving three date of births apart from 14.06.2003, nor she made any endeavours to get her date of birth rectified despite having time and opportunity after issuance of Aadhar Card and Voter ID Card as recorded herein above.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Verma - Full Document

Ram Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 30 July, 1969

In this case it has not been proved that the entry in question was made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. As observed by this Court in Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha,(2), "the reason why an entry made by a public servant in a public or other official book, register, or record stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact has been made relevant is that when a public servant makes it' himself in the discharge of his official duty, the probability of its being truly and correctly recorded is high." No proof has been led in this case as to who made the entry and whether the entry was made in the discharge of any official duty. In the result we must hold that Ex. D. the hath chitha, was rightly held by the High Court to be inadmissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 40 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Rameshchandra & Ors. vs Kailash & Ors. on 14 September, 2017

17. For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by un-impeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the un- impeachcable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, Government Hospital/Nursing Home etc, the entry in the school register is to be discarded. (Vide: Brij Mohan Singh 10 Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796; Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283; and Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana JT 2010 (7) SC 500).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishni W/O Narendra Kumar Meena vs Muthri Devi W/O Harikishan ... on 16 February, 2023

In Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha (1965) 3 SCR 861 , a question arose whether the returned candidate had attained the age of 25 years on the date of his nomination. The High Court had set aside the election of the returned candidate on the ground that he was below the age of 25 years on the date of filing the nomination. This Court set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the election of the returned candidate on the ground that the burden of proving that the returned candidate had not attained the age of 25 years on the date of his nomination was on the election petitioner and since he had failed to prove that, the election of the returned candidate could not be set aside. This Court held that an entry recorded in the birth register maintained by an illiterate chowkidar by somebody else at his request, was not admissible and had no probative value within Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

An Application Under Articles 226 & 227 ... vs The Collector & District Magistrate on 18 April, 2023

<Under S. 36(7) a certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency. ... .. ... ... Section 19 read with S. 36(7) shows that when a presumption is raised under Section 36(7) it may mean prima facie that the person concerned is not less than twenty-one years of age. .. ... ...= In the decision in Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Others, AIR 1965 SC 282 it has been held:
Orissa High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next