Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.01 seconds)Section 71 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dolgobinda Paricha vs Nimai Charan Misra & Others on 27 April, 1959
The
Hon'ble Apex Court said that it was laid down in
Dolgobinda Parich Vs. Nimal Charan Misra reported in
AIR 1959 SC 914 that, what is relevant is the opinion
expressed by conduct, and opinion means something more
than mere relating of gossip or of hearsay; it means
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Munivenkatappa vs Chikkapapamma on 6 June, 1991
In the said order it was opined
that in view of the decision in the case of
Munivenkatappa Vs. Chikkapapamma reported in ILR
1991 KAR 3014 the matter has to be remanded for
recording evidence of Commissioner with opportunity to
cross-examine and for re-appreciation by Courts below. At
that stage learned counsel for respondent - plaintiff
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M.B. Ramesh (D) By Lrs vs K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 3 May, 2013
NC: 2023:KHC:20708
RSA No. 2151 of 2006
completion of the evidence on plaintiff's side. He contends
that if any document is not produced, then the Court can
draw adverse inference and not for delayed production. He
contends, that one of the attesting witnesses who is
examined as D.W.4, his evidence do not establish the due
execution of the Will - Ex.D.4. Therefore, the defendant
has examined the scribe of the Will as D.W.5 and Section
71 of the Evidence Act enables the party to produce other
evidence to prove the Will if the testator examined is not
specific as to the attestor signing in the presence of
testator and the testator executing the Will in his
presence. On that point he placed reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.B. Ramesh
(D) By LRs Vs. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by LRs. and
others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2088 wherein it is held
as under: