Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)
Mrs. Namita Jain vs P. Sundareswar on 4 August, 2021 cites

Ajay Kumar Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 September, 2012

In the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State of Rajasthan (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar to prevent the courts from comparing the signatures by using its own eyes. Section 73 of the Evidence Act, empowers the Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1156 of 2008 signatures. However, it would be unsafe for the Courts to compare the signatures without the aid of scientific opinion of an expert.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 120 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S Gian Chand & Brothers vs Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh on 8 January, 2013

As far as the present case is concerned, the plaintiff did not take any steps to get the opinion of the hand writing expert, especially, when the defendant has not only disowned his signature on the suit promissory note but also contended that he does not know who the plaintiff is. The decision in the case of Gian Chand & Brothers and another vs. Ratta Lal @ Rattan Singh (cited supra), may not also apply to the facts of the present case since in that case, the courts below had wrongly placed the onus of proof on the defendant to prove that the signature had been forged, moreso, when there was denial of the same. Interestingly, this particular ruling is not in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiffs in that suit also had chosen to adduce acceptable evidence to prove the entries in the books of accounts maintained by them in the regular course of business. Similarly the other rulings relied on by the plaintiff may not also apply to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 98 - D Misra - Full Document

Thakur Kishan Singh vs Arvind Kumar on 7 September, 1994

"7. It is to be reiterated that under Section 100 jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and it does not confer any jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100. That apart, at the time of disposing of the matter the High Court did not even notice the question of law formulated by it at the time of admission of the second appeal as there is no reference of it in the impugned judgment. Further the fact findings courts after appreciating the evidence held that the defendant entered into the possession of the premises as a batai, that is to say, as a tenant and his possession was permissive and there was no pleading or proof as to when it became adverse and hostile. These findings recorded by the two courts below were based on proper appreciation Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1156 of 2008 of evidence and the material on record and then was no perversity, illegality of irregularity in those findings. if the defendant got the possession of suit land as a lessee or under a batai agreement then from the permissive possession it is for him to establish by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner. Mere possession for a long time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession (Thakur Kishan Singh vs. Arvind kumar (1994 (6) SCC 591). hence the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 179 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Tejumal vs Ram Pratap Jaiswal on 16 April, 2003

5. 2003 Lawsuit (MP) 299 (Tejumal vs. Ram Pratap Jaiswal) and contended that (1) If the courts below have wrongly cast the burden of proof on the plaintiff and ignored the material evidence, the High Court can interfere with the findings of the courts below. (2) Forgery is to be pleaded and proved and an ambiguous statement in the written statement that the suit promissory note is a forged document cannot be accepted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1