Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Section 11 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
22. While considering the meaning of the words 'reasonable requirement' occurring in a similar provision in Section 11 (1 )(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, the Supreme Court has observed in MST. BEGA BEGUM AND ORS. v. ABDUL AHAD KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS., 1979(1)SC Cases 273 in paragraph-13 at page 279 as under:
Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 13 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Irudayam Ammal And Ors. vs Salayath Mary on 1 August, 1972
The said explanation is unacceptable as she has filed objection statement and also affidavits in the trial Court. No medical certificate is produced in proof of her alleged physical and mental infirmity. If that statement of R.W.1 is true, it is reasonable to ask as to who is managing the hotel and maintaining the family. Therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn against the tenants for the non-examination of Smt. Sarata Shetty as rightly contended by Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the landlord, on the strength of the Decisions in IRUDAYAM AMMAL AND ORS. v. SALAYATH MARY, in which it is laid down that adverse inference must be drawn if a party fails to examine important witness and in GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR v. MOHAMMED HAJI LATIF AND ORS., in which it is held that the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against a party who fails to produce best evidence in his possession which would throw light on the issue in controversy. In my opinion, first petitioner was the best person to say whether or not the signatures found on Ex.P-9 were the signatures of her husband Sri V.R. Shetty. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that she has kept herself out of the witness box deliberately and, therefore, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the tenants. Consequently, I hold that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the eviction petition was maintainable does not call for interference.
Section 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
The said explanation is unacceptable as she has filed objection statement and also affidavits in the trial Court. No medical certificate is produced in proof of her alleged physical and mental infirmity. If that statement of R.W.1 is true, it is reasonable to ask as to who is managing the hotel and maintaining the family. Therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn against the tenants for the non-examination of Smt. Sarata Shetty as rightly contended by Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the landlord, on the strength of the Decisions in IRUDAYAM AMMAL AND ORS. v. SALAYATH MARY, in which it is laid down that adverse inference must be drawn if a party fails to examine important witness and in GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR v. MOHAMMED HAJI LATIF AND ORS., in which it is held that the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against a party who fails to produce best evidence in his possession which would throw light on the issue in controversy. In my opinion, first petitioner was the best person to say whether or not the signatures found on Ex.P-9 were the signatures of her husband Sri V.R. Shetty. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that she has kept herself out of the witness box deliberately and, therefore, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the tenants. Consequently, I hold that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the eviction petition was maintainable does not call for interference.