Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)
Amar Singh vs Chhaju Singh And Anr. on 31 January, 1972 cites

Rokkam Lakshmi Reddi vs Rokkam Venkata Reddi on 22 April, 1937

if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds.' If we remember that the offered item of evidence under S. 50 is conduct in the sense explained above, then there is no difficulty in holding that such conduct or outward behaviour must be proved in the manner laid down in Section 60; 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; and so on. The conduct must be of the person who fulfils the essential conditions of Sections 50, and it must be proved in the manner laid down in the provisions relating to proof. It appears to us that the 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 the 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 as the testimony must relate to external facts which constitute conduct and is given by person personally acquainted with such facts, the testimony is in each case, direct within the meaning of Section 60. This, in our opinion, is the true inter-relation between Section 50 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act. In (1886) ILR 9 Mad 9 at p.11, Hutchins, J., Said:
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 Next