Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 158 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. Rs. & ... on 20 January, 1977

Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh vs Mr. Mahesh Vennalakanti on 1 April, 2024

"16. The learned counsel for the appellant could not fairly dispute the distinction between "replies" submitted to the Court in some pending proceedings, as compared to the statements recorded by the police under Section 161CrPC. Nevertheless, a court should be overcautious to place reliance on a piece of evidence with which the witness concerned has not been confronted despite an opportunity to do so. Although there is no need to separately prove the court records emanating during trial but no legal presumption can be extended to the veracity of the contents of such documents. The reply filed in court proceedings, at best, can be treated as an admission; which as held by this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil [Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49] , must not only be proved, but also the opposite party must be confronted with it at the stage of cross-examination. It would be apposite to extract the cited judgment to the following effect : (SCC p. 53, para 17) Page 42 of 85 APRIL 01, 2024 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 14:44:17 ::: fca 97-14.docx "17. If admission is proved and if it is thereafter to be used against the party who has made it the question comes within the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The provisions in the Evidence Act that "admission is not conclusive proof" are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and is a relevant piece of evidence. Second, even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party who has made it, 'it is sound that if a witness is under cross-examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity, if the documents are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule' ... Therefore, a mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilised against him."
Bombay High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dayaben vs Labhshanker on 30 November, 2011

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by LRs and another, AIR 1977 SC 1712, was relied upon for the proposition that there is no abstract principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct when it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct. The court, in the facts of the case, found that apart from the intrinsic evidence in the record of rights that they refer to facts which are untrue, it also appeared that the record of rights have reference to the mutation entry that was made by the Circle Officer on 30.1.1956. The court was of the view that the counsel for the respondent had rightly contended that no presumption could arise for two principal reasons. Firstly, the oral evidence in the case nullified the entries in the record of rights as showing a state of affairs opposed to the real state of affairs, and, secondly, no notice was ever given to the respondent with regard to mutation proceedings. The court, accordingly, held that therefore, the respondent was right in contending that no presumption can validly arise from the record of rights. Mr. Patel submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, notice under section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has not been served upon the appellants and there is no evidence to show that any such service had been effected. Hence, no presumption can validly arise against the appellants from the revenue record.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Sri Hemla Naika vs Smt. Rathnamma on 10 September, 2024

"9. ......... One whose previous statement is to be treated as an admission or it is sought to be used, he has to be confronted with such a statement. We find that though the document, namely, the plaint in the earlier suit, has been brought on record but no request seems to have been made for summoning the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil [(1977) 2 SCC 49]. Our attention has been drawn to the observations made in paragraph 17 of the Report to the effect that the admission has to be clear, unambiguous and proved conclusively. It is a question which needs to be considered as to what weight is to be attached to an admission and for that purpose it is necessary to find out as to whether it is clear, unambiguous and a relevant piece of evidence, and further it is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It would be appropriate that an opportunity is given to the person under cross- examination to tender his explanation and clear the point on the question of admission. In our view, the High Court was again wrong in attaching much weight to the averments made in the earlier plaint and coming to the conclusion that the defendants were admitted to be the tenants by the plaintiff on the land in question."
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company ... vs Shamanur Sugars Limited & Ors. Mkvj & Rn ... on 1 May, 2014

(b) Sita Ram Bhau Patil v Ramchandra Nago Patil (1977) 2 SCC 49 "13. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act states that "An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the Page 25 of 32 RP No.6 of 2014 in Appeal No.44 of 2013 circumstances, hereinafter mentioned". In regard to dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent arising out of Surveys Nos. 194/15 and 200/29, Survey Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 were neither issues in fact nor relevant fact."
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.P. Elangovan vs The Commissioner And Secretary on 24 January, 2008

19. The contention of the petitioner as regards the principles to be applied in regard to an admission which form the basis for the framing of the charges by relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1712 (Sita Ram Bhau Patil V. Ramachandra Nago Patil (dead) by LRs. And another), AIR 1980 MADRAS 212(M. Manoharan Chetti and others V. M/s. C. Coomaraswamy Naidu and Sons, Madras) those are all aspects which have to be examined in the inquiry or in the event of any adverse orders being passed against the petitioner and while working out any remedy as against any such order, if so advised by the petitioner. It is highly premature at this stage to express any opinion as regards the so-called admission that will not also be in the interest of the petitioner, who has to submit his explanation and face further proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Ram Ratan Lal & Anr vs Mahendra Pd.& Ors on 9 September, 2014

In the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil and another, reported in A.I.R. 1977 Patna High Court FA No.337 of 1988 dt.09-09-2014 18 SC 1712 the Supreme Court has held that "an admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. The provisions in the Evidence Act that 'admission is not conclusive proof' are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and is a relevant piece of evidence. Second, even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party who has made it, it is sound that if a witness is under cross-examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity, if the documents are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule. Therefore, a mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilised against him." In the present case the appellants did not adduce any evidence, therefore, there is no question of confronting to the appellants arises but there was conflicting interest according to the written statement filed by the appellants between the plaintiff and the appellants. Therefore, under Section 18 of the Evidence Act also the so-called admission cannot be utilised against the plaintiff.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next