Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
He also relied on another decision reported
in AIR 2008 SCW 5682 in the case of Kurella Naga Druva
Vidya Bhaskara Rao V/s Galla Jani Kamma alias
Nacharamma in which it is held that "mere possession for
some years by defendant would not be sufficient to claim
adverse possession. Specific evidence has to be placed to
show that such possession was hostile possession". He
has also argued that the plaintiff has committed fraud on
the Court. With regard to the same he has relied on a
decision reported in (1994) Supreme Court Cases 1 in
the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LR's Vs.
Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and others in which it is held
that "Non disclosure of relevant and materials documents
with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud".
Bhimappa And Ors. vs Allisab And Ors. on 27 February, 2006
The
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that D.W.1 who is the
Power of Attorney holder of the defendants has no
knowledge about the transactions pertaining to the suit
schedule property and as such his evidence cannot be
relied upon. On the other hand, Counsel for the
defendants argued that there is no bar to prosecute the
case through a Power of Attorney. The evidence of Power
of Attorney is admissible and he can depose with regard
to the facts which are within his knowledge and he can
also depose about the documents which he knows. The
Counsel for the defendant has relied on a decision
reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3129 in the case of
Bhimappa and Others Vs. Allisab and others in which it
is held that " there is no express bar made in the
provisions of CPC to debar the Power of Attorney to be
examined as a witness on behalf of the parties to the
proceedings. Power of Attorney is a competent witness
and is entitled to appear as such. His evidence cannot be
refused to be taken into consideration on the ground that
the parties to the suit did not choose to appear as
witnesses in the witness box". He also relied an another
decision reported in ILR 2015 KAR 635 in which in the
case of Sajida Banu V/s Halema Banu and others it is
held that " the Court cannot prevent a party from
prosecuting the litigation or defending it through a Power
of Attorney Holder. A party has a right to be represented
by a Power of Attorney Holder. Once a Power of Attorney
Holder enters the witness box and gives evidence,
whether that evidence has to be acted upon or whether it
is a direct evidence or hearsay evidence, is to be decided
by the Court at the time of appreciation of the evidence".
As such, in view of the principles laid down in the above
decisions and since D.W.1 is none other than the son of
the defendant No.2 he can depose with respect to the
facts which are within his knowledge and also about the
documents secured and produced by him. Further, since
the title over the suit schedule property is in dispute, the
documentary evidence is more relevant than the oral
evidence. As such, it cannot be said that the evidence of
D.W.1 has to be rejected in toto. The Power of Attorney
holder of the defendants who is examined as D.W.1 has
reiterated the facts alleged by the defendants in their
written statement in O.S. No. 265/2013 and the plaint in
O.S. No. 7556/2013. To prove the title of the defendants
over the property in Sy. No. 121/8 D.W.1 has got marked
the Genealogical tree as Ex.D.41. Village Map as Ex.D.42.
Certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.04.1912 as
Ex.D.43. Pahanisud as Ex.D.6, Aakar Bandh as Exs.D.4,
D.5 and Ex.D.78, Hissa survey Tippani as Ex.D.47.
Secondary reclass Tippani as Ex.D.48. Preliminary
Record as Ex.D.49. Index of lands as Exs.D.30, D.50 and
D.51. Patta Book, an Agreement and another document
with respect to digging of a well as Ex.D.31 to D.33. He
has also got marked the RTC Extracts of Sy.No.121/8
as Exs.D.34 to 37 and D.55 to D.72. Mutation Register
Extract as Ex.D.73. Settlement Register Extract as
Ex.D.75. Survey Sketches as Exs.D.76 and D.77.
Encumbrance Certificates as Exs.D.79 to D.83 and
D.137, the certified copy of the sale deed which is
marked as Ex.P.1 as D.154. He has also got marked the
photographs as Exs.D.164 to D.171 and a Panchayath
Parikath of the year 1938 as Ex.D.173.
Section 7 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1