Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Gopal Das vs Sri Thakurji on 22 January, 1943

Arulsingamani And Another vs S. Vaiguntha Rajan And Another on 11 November, 1999

(1) Balakrishna v. Ganesa, (FB) AIR 1954 Travancore, Cochin 209; (2) Ramakrushna v. Gangadhar, AIR 1958 Ori 25; (3) M.S.U. Mills v. Union of India, ; (4) Mira Bai v. Jai Singh, AIR 1971 Raj. 303; (5) Dhurma v. Paramanands, ; (6) Brij Monan v. Bank of Baroda, ; (7) Ganesan & 4 others v. M. Sundararaja Thevar, 1999 (3) L.W. 433 The decision in Balakrishna v. Ganesa, AIR 1954 Travancore-Cochin 209, was followed the decision reported in Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83, It all the other cases except Ganesan & 4 others v. M. Sundararaja Thevar, 1999 (3) L.W. 433 the question considered was regarding mode of proof and the decision was that the objection as to admissibility will have to be taken at the time when the document is sought to be marked.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

B.Karthikeyan vs R.Saroja on 10 February, 2016

38.The above view is further strengthened by a Division Bench of the Privy Council in Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 43, wherein Their Lordships have held that the endorsement showing presentation and execution, admitted by the testator before the Registrar are sufficient to certain extent to prove the execution of the Will itself, provided it is not shown that the testator, who had admitted the execution of the document, is not an impostor.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Karthikeyan vs R.Saroja on 10 February, 2016

38.The above view is further strengthened by a Division Bench of the Privy Council in Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 43, wherein Their Lordships have held that the endorsement showing presentation and execution, admitted by the testator before the Registrar are sufficient to certain extent to 13/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S.No.52 of 2002 prove the execution of the Will itself, provided it is not shown that the testator, who had admitted the execution of the document, is not an impostor.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Northern Nursery Thr. Prop. Sheetala ... vs . H & S Associates & Anr. on 19 August, 2023

"14. To the same effect is the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Gopal Das v. Thakurji [AIR 1943 PC 83 : 47 CWN 607] in which it has been held that when the objection to the mode of proof is not taken, the party cannot lie by until the case comes before a court of appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof. That when the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof was irregular, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Gopi And Anr. vs Madanlal on 30 April, 1969

At any rate there is no doubt that the parties knew that the certified copy was available in the connected file, and that appears to be the reason why no objection was made about the admissibility of Exhibit 8. If an objection had then been raised, the plaintiff would easily have got the certified copy marked as an exhibit and that mark would not have been placed on the certified copy of the copy. The defendant cannot, therefore, be allowed to raise the objection at a later stage and I may refer in this connection to Mst. Chandan Bai v. Jagjiwanlal, 1958 Raj LW 275 = (AIR 1958 Raj 110), which was based on a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83. It was hold in that case in somewhat similar circumstances that a copy of a copy would be sufficient evidence and any objection regarding its admissibility should he deemed to have been waived because, if it had been raised, it would have been perfectly possible for the party concerned to have prayed for the very copy of the document which was on the record to be taken and marked as an exhibit.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Kalyan Singh vs Smt. Chhoti And Ors. on 14 March, 1973

Ex. 3 is neither a certified copy given under any of the provisions of the Evidence Act nor is it a copy made from the original by any mechanical process. It also does not appear to have been made or compared from the original as there is no verification or endorsement of the kind and it does not come under Clauses 4 or 5 of Section 63 either. No one has given the oral account of the contents of the original document. If in place of primary evidence secondary evidence is admitted without any objection at the proper time then the parties are precluded from raising the question that the document has not been proved by primary evidence but by secondary evidence. But where there is no secondary evidence as contemplated by Section 65 of the Evidence Act then the document cannot be said to have been proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on two cases Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83 and Pandappa v. Shivalingappa, AIR 1946 Bom 193.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next