Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.53 seconds)Section 111 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
To support his argument, learned Sr. counsel
pressed into service, the Para-62 of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 12 SCC 18 titled as
Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S. Rajalakshmi and ors.,
which is reproduced herein-under:-
Ramu Mahabir vs Ghurhoo Samu on 22 February, 2006
To substantiate his argument, learned counsel
relied upon the Paras-17, 18 and 20 of the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 2006 ALLAHABAD
273 titled as Ramu Mahabir Vs. Ghurhoo Samu which is
reproduced herein-under:-
Daya Shankar vs Smt. Bachi And Ors. on 4 January, 1980
In such cases a Division Bench of this Court in Day a Shankar v.
Smt. Bachi and Ors. , has held that the burden to prove the
genuineness of the deed lies on dominating party and not on a
person challenging it. In this context the following paragraphs of the
Page 10 of 12
decision of Daya Shankar (supra) is quite remarkable and is. quoted
as below:
Chinta Dasya vs Bhalku Das on 17 March, 1930
In Parasnath Rai V. Tileshra Kuar 1965, All LJ 1080, Gangeshwar
Prasad, J. followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta
Dasya V. Bhalku Das AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J. held, that
rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally
applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not
be pardahnashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad
principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the
numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also
embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reasons of their
apparent physical or mental incapacity or infirmity or being placed
in circumstances where they are greatly amenable to the
overpowering influence of another person are induced to enter into
conveyances and transactions relating to their property. The basic
principle is the same and where it is proved to the satisfaction of the
court either that the bargain was on the face of it unconscionable or
the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap or that
he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which
another person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast
squarely on the person enjoying the dominating position to show
that he secured the deed in good faith.
1