Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.21 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999
In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao4 this Court reiterated the following well-recognised legal position: (SCC pp. 583-84, para 17)
17. Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.
D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010
(iv) JT 2010(11) SC 398 [D.R.Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa]; an excerpt from it would run thus:
Sardar Gurbaksh Singh vs Gurdial Singh on 19 July, 1927
"17. Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh1.
Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari vs Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh on 24 March, 1930
This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh2 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh.
Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter vs Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat on 27 October, 1969
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat4 also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh case1.
Arjun Singh vs Virendra Nath And Anr. on 2 January, 1970
The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virendra Nath5 held that if a party abstains from entering the witness-box, it would give rise to an adverse inference against him.
Bhagwan Dass vs Bhishan Chand And Ors. on 24 July, 1972
21. The above decisions appear to be based on the principle that a person in his capacity as a defendant can raise any legitimate plea available to him under law to defeat the suit of the plaintiff. This would also include the plea that the sale deed by which the title to the property was intended to be conveyed to the plaintiff was void or fictitious or, for that matter, collusive and not intended to be acted upon. Thus, the whole question would depend upon the pleadings of the parties, the nature of the suit, the nature of the deed, the evidence led by the parties in the suit and other attending circumstances. For example, in a landlord-tenant matter where the landlord is possessed of many properties and cannot possibly seek eviction of his tenant for bona fide need from one of the properties, the landlord may ostensibly transfer that property to a person who is not possessed of any other property so that that person, namely, the transferee, may institute eviction proceedings on the ground of his genuine need and thus evict the tenant who could not have been otherwise evicted. In this situation, the deed by which the property was intended to be transferred, would be a collusive deed representing a sham transaction which was never intended to be acted upon. It would be open to the tenant in his capacity as a defendant to assert, plead and prove that the deed was fictitious and collusive in nature. We, therefore, cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the Privy Council in the case of Lal Achal Ram7 in the broad terms in which it is expressed but do approve the law laid down by the Calcutta, Patna and Orissa High Courts as pointed out above.
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
(ii) (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 512 MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS V. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA, certain excerpts from it would run thus: