Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)

Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011

17. It is pertinent to state in here that it is stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint that Sh. Uttam Singh has left behind the property bearing no. A-4, Shyam Nagar, Khayala Road, New Delhi. Although, the said fact is not denied by the defendants in their written statement, however the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove that Sh. Uttam Singh was owner of the abovesaid property, as ownership over a property cannot be said to be proved merely on the basis of admission of other parties. I may gainfully referred the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami, (2011) 12 SCC 220 "101.Burden of proof.--Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 244 - G S Misra - Full Document
1