Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)

Daya Nand vs . Manjit Kaur & Ors. on 25 September, 2014

11. Per contra ld. counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants have duly admitted the factum of being the tenants of the plaintiff in the earlier Civil Suit no.600/2010 titled as Manjeet Kaur Vs. Daya Ram and it is alleged that by virtue of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act the defendants cannot deny the ownership/title of the plaintiff in the present suit. It is also alleged that the defendant no.1 to 4 have been in illegal occupation of the suit property and are liable to be evicted. Ld. counsel also argued that the defendants have relied upon copy of RTI reply to show that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property which is inadmissible in evidence as the same is not an original document and it has not been proved in accordance with law.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1