Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs Girish Chander on 26 November, 2018
63. Another distinguishable fact is that in Mukesh Kumar Sharma
v. Girish Chander9 the plaintiff secured the loan by cheques, whereas,
9 ibid.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011
34. Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of
proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Until such
burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon
to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person
whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he
arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness
of the other party - See Rangammal v. Kuppuwami.6
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
K. Laxmanan vs Thekkayil Padmini & Ors on 3 December, 2008
In K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini,3 the Apex Court held
that when there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution
of the will, the onus is also on the propounder to explain them to the
satisfaction of the court and only when such responsibility is
discharged, the court would accept the will as genuine. Even when
there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on
the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. Suspicious
circumstances arise due to several reasons such as with regard to
genuineness of the signature of the testator, the conditions of the
testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural,
improbable or unfair... or there might be other indications in the will to
show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the court
would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be
completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will
of the testator.