Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.53 seconds)Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others on 23 May, 1958
In this regard, this Court
would like to rely upon the judgment reported in 1958 SCC
ONLINE SC 77 in the case of RAZIA BEGUM vs
SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS wherein the
Apex Court in paragraph 10 discussed with regard to the
admission is concerned. The Apex Court held that no doubt,
Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code, it has to be noted that the
Court may in its discretion require any fact so admission to
be proved otherwise than by such admission. The proviso
to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that
facts admitted need not be proved. Reading all these
provisions together, it is manifest that the Court is not
34
bound to grant the declarations prayed for, even though the
facts alleged in the plaint, may have been admitted. The
Court has to insist upon the burden of the issue being fully
discharged, and if the Court, in pursuance of the terms of
Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, decides, in a given
case, to insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts, the
Court could not be said to have exceeded its judicial
powers. In paragraph 23 of the said judgment, the Apex
Court held that in a suit under Section 42 of the Specific
Relief Act, it is discretionary with the Court to make or not
to make the declaration asked for. The exercise of that
discretion, however, has to be judicial.
Avtar Singh And Ors vs Gurdial Singh And Ors on 4 December, 2006
26. This Court also would like to rely on the
judgment reported in (2006) 12 SCC 552 in the case of
AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS vs GURDIAL SINGH AND
OTHERS wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to
Sections 58, 17 and 31 of the Evidence Act, 1872, that is
proof by admission and held that, admission forms the best
35
evidence. As per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872,
things admitted need not be proved and also observed that
though admission does not create any title, nature of land
can form subject mater of admission. Hence, it is clear that
the admission does not create any title. In paragraph 8 of
the judgment, the Apex Court held that admission, it is well
known, forms the best evidence. It may be that admission
does not create any title, but the nature of the land can
form subject matter of admission. Thus, this judgment is
aptly applicable to the facts of the case.