Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.33 seconds)Section 69 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Om Prakash Berlia And Another vs Unit Trust Of India And Others (No. 2) on 6 August, 1982
129. Koli claims to have exercised the option to purcha se the
suit land on 1 st September 1983. The option to purcha se is on
a plain ledger paper stated to be signed by the Haji as well as
him. Even that docume nt is marked part of Y-1 (colly) for
identification; only the Haji's signat ur e is marked part of
Exhibit- 6(colly) . Both these docume n t s have since not been
identified and are accordingly not proved. The document s,
therefore, cannot be read in evidence. The reliance upon the
case of Om Prakash Berlia & Anr. Vs. Unit Trust of India &
Ors. 198 3 Bombay 1 relied upon by Mr. Pandey himself
shows that the trut h of the content s of the docume nt s not
having been proved by the maker of the docume nt s, the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:49 :::
80
docume nt cannot be stated to be proved and cannot be read in
evidence.