Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.39 seconds)Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Roop Kumar vs Mohan Thedani on 2 April, 2003
20. Indisputably when a true character of a document is questioned,
extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is admissible. {See R.
Janakiraman Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras
(2006) 1 SCC 697 para 24]; Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani [(2003) 6
SCC 595, para 19]; and State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Mula Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 293 paras 23 to 32]}.
R. Janakiraman vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 4 January, 2006
20. Indisputably when a true character of a document is questioned,
extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is admissible. {See R.
Janakiraman Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras
(2006) 1 SCC 697 para 24]; Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani [(2003) 6
SCC 595, para 19]; and State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Mula Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 293 paras 23 to 32]}.
M/S Kamakshi Builders vs M/S Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors on 18 May, 2007
15. It is true that the written statement was permitted to be amended.
Additional evidence pursuant thereto was also permitted to be adduced.
The First Appellate Court, however, had a duty to properly appreciate the
evidence in the light of the pleadings of the parties. While doing so, it was
19
required to pose unto itself the correct questions. The deed of sale being a
registered one and apparently containing stipulations of transfer of right,
title and interest by the vendor in favour of the vendee, the onus of proof
was upon the defendant to show that the said deed was, in fact, not executed
or otherwise does not reflect the true nature of transaction. Evidently, with
a view to avoid confrontation in regard to his signature as an attesting
witness as also that of his father as vendor in the said sale deed, he did not
examine himself. An adverse inference, thus, should have been drawn
against him by the learned Trial Court. {[See Kamakshi Builders v.
Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 2191]}.
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India & Anr vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd on 6 July, 2006
20. Indisputably when a true character of a document is questioned,
extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is admissible. {See R.
Janakiraman Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras
(2006) 1 SCC 697 para 24]; Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani [(2003) 6
SCC 595, para 19]; and State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Mula Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 293 paras 23 to 32]}.
Ranganayakamma & Anr vs K.S. Prakash (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 16 May, 2008
Pleadings of the parties, it is trite, are required to be read as a whole.
Defendants, although are entitled to raise alternative and inconsistent plea
but should not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of
each other. It is also a cardinal principle of appreciation of evidence that
the court in considering as to whether the deposition of a witness and/or a
party is truthful or not may consider his conduct. Equally well settled is the
principle of law that an admission made by a party in his pleadings is
admissible against him proprio vigore. [(See Ranganayakamma & Anr. v.
K.S. Prakash (D) By Lrs. & Ors. [2008 (9) SCALE 144]