Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing Dolgobinda Paricha vs Nimai Charan Misra & Others on 27 April, 1959

Dandu Mahto -Deleted vs Jagu Mahto on 3 January, 2023

So far as the law point no.1 is concerned with regard to section 50 of the Evidence Act the special means of knowledge is one of the ingredients to decide the claim in light of section 50 of the Evidence Act in which judgment relied by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in the case of 'Dolgobinda Paricha, v. Nimai Charan Misra and Others, (supra), the witness namely Janardan Mishra has attended the marriage of Malabati as daughter of Loknath and he has also attended the marriages and upnayan ceremony of grand children of Loknath and in that view of the matter, he was having the special knowledge of conduct and in that scenario the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that section 50 of the Evidence Act comes into play and the circumstances of section 50 of the Evidence Act as has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.6 and 7 as referred by Mr.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Looking into the evidence of D.W.4 which has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents elaborately it transpired that he has admitted that he has not attended the marriage of Adri. He was not knowing the birth of the plaintiff and simply saying so that the plaintiff was the son of Adri without any special knowledge in light of section 50 of the Evidence Act in absence of knowledge not helping the respondents. It is prima facie held that his evidence is not coming within the purview of section 50 of the Evidence Act and the dispute is arising of relationship of mother and son and identical was the situation in the evidence of the P.W.2, 4 and 5. It is well settled that witnesses who are examined to depose to the genealogy would have to depend on their special means of knowledge 13 Second Appeal No.48 of 1998(R) which may have come to them through their ancestors. There is a great risk and a serious danger involved in relying solely on the evidence of witnesses given from pure memory because the witnesses who are interested normally have a tendency to draw more from their imagination or turn and twist the facts that they may have heard from their ancestors in order to help the parties for whom they are deposing. The D.W.4 is admittedly 80 years of age and he has admitted that he has not attended the marriage. Moreover, considering that in Title Appeal No.109 of 1939, exhibit-G/1, Adri is shown to be widow of late Johali Mahto, wherein the entire pleadings it was claimed that she was wife of Chhotu Mahto, however, in the said decree Rausa Mahtain is said to be wife of late Chhotu Mahto so there is documentary evidence to suggest that Adri was the wife of late Johali Mahto and in that view of the matter, prima facie, it appears that the ingredients of section 50 of Evidence Act are not fulfilled and accordingly law point no.1 is answered in view of the materials discussed therein normally suggest that the plaintiff was not the son of Adri Mahtain and the documentary evidence to that effect was held that by the leraned trial court, in exhibit-M and G/1, particularly, which is the decree of the learned court in Title Appeal No.109 of 1936. So far as law point no.2 is concerned in light of the discussions made to decide law point no.1 whether the evidence of P.W.2, 4 and 5 was admissible under section 50 of the Evidence Act, they are not admissible. In order to bring the evidence of such witnesses as has been discussed by the appellate court the principles are required to be considered that the relationship for connection, however, the relationship or the connection however close it may be, which the witness bears to the persons whose pedigree is sought to be deposed by him; and the nature and character of special means of knowledge is required to be one of the parameters to consider such witnesses, one of which is 14 Second Appeal No.48 of 1998(R) derived under all means of special knowledge as purely from imagination and the evidence of the witness must be substantially corroborated as far as time and memory and these ingredients are lacking in the case in hand and the documentary evidence suggest that plaintiff was not the son of Adri Mahtain. Adri was not wife of Chothu Mahto and she was wife of Johali Mahto and in that view of the matter the law point no.2 is answered by way of saying that prima facie it suggest that the plaintiff was not son of late Adri Mahtain.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Basappa Tegirinatele vs Hanumappa Baithal on 2 July, 2021

Furthermore, the contention of the respondents/plaintiffs is found to be false that the said Krishtappa son of Thimmappa died bachelor. By virtue of Ex.D26 i.e., counter, the rejection of documentary evidence by the First Appellate Court is on flimsy grounds and discarding the evidence of Ex.D26 is improper as the reason assigned is not sufficient in nature. Further, PW.1 in his cross examination admitted that the suit land to the entire extent i.e., 30 acres 13 guntas came from the original propositus Thimmappa and it was inherited to his two sons Thimmappa (junior) and Hanumappa and this could be found from the Kasara pahani patrika Ex.D1 which is of the year 1954-55. Therefore, in this regard the ruling relied on by the respondents/plaintiffs in the 29 case of Dolgobinda Paricha Vs. Nimai Charan Misra and others reported in 1959 AIR 914 is not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances therein are different from the present case. The counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that that relationship of the parties is not proved as per Section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H Sanjeevkumar - Full Document

Dashrath S/O. Reshmaji Gaddamwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2009

In Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra & Ors.(1) the Apex Court held that the statement in question was admissible because it was made before the question in dispute had arisen. In other words, Court held that in the facts and circumstances of that case the statement and the pedigree relied upon were made ante litem motam and not post litem motam, for if the latter had been the case, the document would have become inadmissible and in this connection the Court observed thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V C Daga - Full Document

Anirudh Prasad Kamal Sen vs Dashmat Bai Suryavanshi And Ors 27 ... on 28 August, 2020

"(6) ... On a plain reading of the section it is quite clear that it deals with relevancy of a particular fact. It states in effect that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by 13 conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the section. It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are - (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfill the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfills that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the "belief" or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant & may, therefore, be proved. ..."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

WP(C)/2221/2020 on 20 August, 2021

15. The impugned order of the Tribunal also does not refer to the evidences adduced on behalf of the proceedee/petitioner. As has been held by the Apex Court in Dolgobinda Paricha (supra) in respect of Section 50 of the Evidence Act that there are three essential requirements to Section 50 of the Evidence Act namely, (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfill the condition laid down in the later part of the section .
Gauhati High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N K Singh - Full Document

Share In The 'A' Schedule Property. The vs No.6 Appeared Through Separate ... on 20 December, 2021

"It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are ­ (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another;(2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the O.S. No.8083/2007 18 existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who was a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfill the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfills that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than a mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the " belief " or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may therefore be proved."
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muhammad Naseem Lodhi & Ors vs Raja Mohammad Amin & Ors on 6 December, 2022

"On a plain reading of the section it is quite clear that it deals with relevancy of a particular fact. It states in effect that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the section. It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are - (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfil the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfils that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the "belief" or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behavior which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behavior as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Smt Shobha W/O Hutchegowda vs Sri Srinivasa S/O Krishnappa on 14 October, 2022

"On a plain reading of the section it is quite clear that it deals with relevancy of a 35 particular fact. It states in effect that when the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the section. It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are -- (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfil the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfils that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip 36 or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the "belief" or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next