Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Tvs Motor Company Ltd on 16 September, 2009
Insofar as the
onus of proof is concerned, it is held in that judgment, referred to above, that
onus of proof by a party would cease, the moment, the opposite party admits
the transaction. In this case, the onus of proof is on the defendants to prove
the execution of the Will, that has been denied by the plaintiffs. Once
defendants are able to prove the Will to the satisfaction of the court, the suit
filed by the plaintiffs will be dismissed and there is no necessity to go into
the further aspects of the matter, by letting evidence by the plaintiffs.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
V.Palanisamy vs V.Shanmugam on 30 November, 2011
(i) V.Palanisamy vs. V.Shanmugam and others [2012 (3) CTC 6 : 2012 (1)
LW 467], wherein it has been held as follows:-
Krishnakumar vs V.Seethalakshmi on 7 January, 2013
''7. The case of the defendants is that, Narayana Asari did not die
intestate and he executed a Will in favour of his son Subramaniam, viz., the
father of the defendants. Therefore, as per the provisions of Order 18, Rule 1
of C.P.C., both the parties, viz., the plaintiffs and the defendants admitted the
fact that the properties belonged to Narayana Asari and this fact has to be
taken into consideration and the other denial, regarding the succession to
the property cannot be taken into consideration to decide whether the
defendants are admitting the case of the plaintiffs are not. If the arguments
of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is to be accepted, for
attracting the provisions of Order 18, Rule 1, that the defendants ought to
have admitted the facts, alleged in the plaint, then, there is no need for any
trial and the Court can straightway pass a decree. What the order requires
is, whether the defendants admitted the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs.
In this case, the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs is that the property
belonged to Narayana Asari. That fact admitted by the defendants. If the
defendants claimed that the property did not belong to Narayana Asari or
Narayana Asari has no absolute estate over the property, in that case, it
cannot be stated that the defendants have admitted the case of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, having admitted the fact that the property belongs to Narayana
Asari, the first condition, as stated in Order 18, Rule 1 has been satisfied
and when the defendants pleaded right over the property, under the Will,
they will have to prove the Will. Therefore, the Court below has rightly
directed the defendants to lead evidence, in the first instance.
1