Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
It would be most relevant here to use profitably the observation of the
Apex Court rendered in the case of Balraj Taneja and Anr. (supra) made
in para 30 of such judgment, which may be reproduced hereinbelow:
Dibakar Mahato And Ors. vs Bhagabat Ch. Mahato And Ors. on 30 April, 1993
The decision thus referred by the appellant rendered in the case of
Dibakar Mahato and Ors.(supra) and the decision of the Apex Court
delivered in the case of Nani Bai (supra) has some direct and proximate
relevance for the proper adjudication of this appeal.
Nanni Bai And Others vs Gita Bai on 14 April, 1958
The decision thus referred by the appellant rendered in the case of
Dibakar Mahato and Ors.(supra) and the decision of the Apex Court
delivered in the case of Nani Bai (supra) has some direct and proximate
relevance for the proper adjudication of this appeal.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Radha Prosad Sharma vs Sm. Bejoy Sett on 16 February, 1996
Reliance was placed by Mr. Mukherjee on a decision reported in 1996
(1) CLJ 557 delivered in the case of Radha Prosad Sharma Vs. Sm. Bejoy
Sett that since it was a suit for eviction of licensee, which had already been
revoked by issuing a notice to quit, the consequent recovery of possession
incidentally involved the question of ownership, and the ownership of the
respondents having already been proved adducing evidence, both oral and
11
documentary, the order of eviction passed by the First Lower Appellate
Court should not be called into any question.
1