Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.30 seconds)Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dolgobinda Paricha vs Nimai Charan Misra & Others on 27 April, 1959
He is a resident of village Deo. He also stated that Mt. Sanichari was the daughter of Somaria. All these witnesses are, therefore, men of the locality, one of village Deo and two of the neighbouring village Bhawanipur, Mr. Prem Lal has contended that the evidence of these three witnesses cannot be held to be in compliance with the terms of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. He has drawn my attention in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dolgobina Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra, AIR 1959 SC 914, which has approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chandu Lal Agarwalla v. Bibi Khatemon-nessa, AIR 1943 Cal 76,
Learned counsel has contended that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that the essential requirements of the Section are: (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact, (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfil the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfils that condition then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Further it was laid down that Section 50 does not make evidence of mere general reputation (without conduct) admissible as proof of relationship. The conduct or outward behaviour must be proved in the manner laid down in Section 60. That is to say, if the conduct relates to something which can be seen, it must be proved by the person who saw it; if it is something which can be heard, then it must be proved by the person who heard it. That portion of Section 60 which provides that the person who holds an opinion must be called to prove his opinion does not necessarily delimit the scope of Section 50 in the sense that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved only by the person whose conduct expresses the opinion. Conduct, as an external perceptible fact, may be proved either by testimony of the person himself whose opinion is evidence under Section 50 or by some other person acquainted with the facts which express such opinion and when such evidence is given by persons personally acquainted with such facts, the testimony in each case is direct within the meaning of Section 60.
Bhogal Paswan And Ors. vs Mt. Bibi Nabihan on 22 August, 1963
A single Judge of this court also had occasion to consider this matter in Bhogal Paswan v. Mt Bibi Nabihan, AIR 1963 Pat 450. In that case the question was whether plaintiff was the daughter of one S. M. Evidence was given by witnesses who were co-villagers, some of them being castemen and neighbours, having in some cases at least lived in the same village and in the same neighbourhood since the lifetime of S. M. The witnesses testified that S. M. died leaving behind his widow and her daughter the plaintiff, that the properties of S. M. devolved jointly on the widow and the plaintiff, that the widow was living jointly with the plaintiff and was in joint possession of the lands in suit and after the widow's death, the plaintiff alone remained in possession.
Sheojee Tiwary And Anr. vs Prema Kuer And Ors. on 28 November, 1963
In Sheojee Tiwary v. Prema Kuer, AIR 1964 Pat 187 it has been laid down that a witness can also give his opinion in evidence as to the relationship of one person to another that is in controversy before a court, provided that opinion is expressed by his conduct, and if he as a member of that family or otherwise has special means of knowledge of that relationship.
1