Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.39 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Musammat Lal Kunwar vs Chiranji Lal on 16 December, 1909
This is thought to be clever, but it is a bad and degrading practice. Lord Atkinson dealt with the subject in Lal Kunwar v. Chiranji Lal (1910) 20 M.L.J. 182 (P.C) : L.R. 37 I.A. 1 : I.L.R. 32 All. 104, calling it "a vicious practice, unworthy of a high-toned or reputable system of advocacy."
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
22. A similar view is expressed by the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji v. Mohammed Haji Latif , wherein their Lordships observed that even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party, the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds an important document in his possession which would throw light on the facts at issue. The Supreme Court went on to observe as follows:
Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 1915
In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants upon the following passage from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Mt. Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh 29 M.L.J. 335 : (1915) 44 Ind. App. 202 at p. 206 : A.I.R. 1915 P.C. 96 at p. 98:
K. C. Kapoor vs Radhika Devi (Dead) By L. Rs. & Others on 15 October, 1981
And then the failure (referred to above) of plaintiff No. 1 to step into the witness box is enough for the Court to raise another presumption, namely, that her deposition would not have supported the plaintiff's case. The onus of proof of the issue on the defendant was, therefore, very light and stood amply discharged by the facts noted in that behalf by the trial Court....
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden is on the defendants to prove the execution of the documents by Sundaramma. In view of the fact that Sundaramma died within a few days after the dates of the documents, her evidence regarding the same is not available to the Court. Nor can there be any evidence with regard to her conduct after the dates of the documents which would have been available if she had lived for long thereafter. Hence, in this case, the standard of proof required for establishing the genuineness and validity of the document in question will be the same as that of a will. The Supreme Court has dealt with the matter of proof of wills at some length in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma , and has laid down as follows: