Smt. Surasaibalini Debi vs Phanindra Mohan Majumdar on 27 October, 1964
In Surasaibalini v. Phanindra Mohan (1965) 1 I.T.J. 526 : (1965) 1 S.C.J. 583 : A.I.R. 1945 S.C. 1364 it, has been held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Kazi Abdul Latif vs Kazi Abdul Huq on 17 August, 1922
The principles relating to a benami transaction have been clearly laid down in Abdul Lajij Kazi v. Abdul Huq Kazi (1925) 28 C.W.N. 62 From the principles laid down in the decisions, it is clear that the person who impugns the apparent character of the transaction, viz., the appellant herein, must show something or other by letting in legal evidence establishing that the transaction in question is a benami one, and the issue cannot be disposed of by a mere conjecture or suspicion as to the various circumstance surrounding the transaction, since the very object of a benami transaction is secrecy. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, provides that any one who desires a Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. The evidence adduced in cases of this character should stand the test of strict scrutiny and satisfy the tests mentioned above. In other words, the evidence must be reliable and acceptable impelling the Court to take a view contrary to the recitals in the impugned document. The consideration of such evidence should be in a proper manner and in the right perspective. Now, having the principles in mind we shall discuss the evidence, oral and documentary, under the various heads:
1