Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.21 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Har Chandi Lal And Ors. vs Sheoraj Singh And Ors. on 19 December, 1916
Shri Shanti Bhushan learned senior advocate during the course of the
arguments placed reliance on the following judgments to contend that
discharge was conditional. Mohan Lal Jogani Rice & Atta Mills v. Ramlal
Onkarmal Firm & Ors., AIR (1957) Assam 133; Maung Chit v. Roshan, AIR
(1934) Rang 389; Ramdayal v. Maji Devdiji, AIR (1956) Raj. 12; Kandswami
Gounder v. K.P. Sivasubramania lyer, AIR (1963) Madras 16; Firm Basdeo Ram
Sarup v. Firm Dilsukharai Sewak Ram, AIR (1922) ALL 461; Firm Budhu Mal v.
Gokal Chand & Ors., AIR (1926) Lahore 328; Har Chandi Lal v. Sheoraj Singh,
AIR (1916) PC 68 and Chegamull Suganmull v. V. Govindswami, AIR (1928) Mad.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chegamull Suganmull Sowcar vs V. Govindaswami Chetty And Ors. on 3 April, 1928
Shri Shanti Bhushan learned senior advocate during the course of the
arguments placed reliance on the following judgments to contend that
discharge was conditional. Mohan Lal Jogani Rice & Atta Mills v. Ramlal
Onkarmal Firm & Ors., AIR (1957) Assam 133; Maung Chit v. Roshan, AIR
(1934) Rang 389; Ramdayal v. Maji Devdiji, AIR (1956) Raj. 12; Kandswami
Gounder v. K.P. Sivasubramania lyer, AIR (1963) Madras 16; Firm Basdeo Ram
Sarup v. Firm Dilsukharai Sewak Ram, AIR (1922) ALL 461; Firm Budhu Mal v.
Gokal Chand & Ors., AIR (1926) Lahore 328; Har Chandi Lal v. Sheoraj Singh,
AIR (1916) PC 68 and Chegamull Suganmull v. V. Govindswami, AIR (1928) Mad.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Chaudhri Mohammad Mehdi Hasan Khan vs Sri Mandir Das on 18 June, 1912
33. What is the effect of production of documents by promissor from its
custody was considered in Chaudhri Mohammad Mehdi Hasan Khan v. Sri Mandir
Das, [L.R. 39 Indian Appeals 184]. In the said case, a suit was field on
the basis of mortgage deed for the recovery of Rs. 62,000 by way of sale of
the mortgage premises. At the time of institution of the suit the plaintiff
produced only a copy of the document, alleging that the original had been
lost. The defendant in his written statement admitted the execution of the
document but alleged that the debt has been discharged. In support of this
allegation he produced the original document containing the endorsement of
payment by the plaintiff. The Privy Council overruling the decision of the
Judicial Commissioner held that in view of the presumption under Section
114 of the Evidence Act the onus was upon the plaintiff to show that the
debt was still subsisting which the plaintiff had failed to discharge by
producing any evidence. It was held that production of the document by the
defendant from his custody raised a rebuttal presumption of the discharge
of the debt.