Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Gopal Swaroop vs Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors on 25 November, 2010
45. 2010 AIOL 819 Supreme Court of India Gopal Swaroop
versus Krishna Murari & others wherein it is held that:
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 272 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors on 29 September, 2005
47. AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4362 Pentakota Satyanaranana
and others versus Pentakota Seetharatnam and others:
Yashoda Gupta vs Suniti Goyal & Ors. on 12 April, 2001
41. I came across the judgments on the point of duly execution of
LA No. 63/2011 Page No. 40 of 50
the Will, cited in Yashoda Gupta Vs. Suniti Goyal, AIR 2002 Del.
20 in which it is held that:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ramabai Padmakar Patil (D) Through Lrs. ... vs Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande And Ors on 14 August, 2003
44. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3109 Ramabai Padmakar Patil
(dead) by LRs and others, versus Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande
and others wherein the court held that:
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam on 17 December, 2002
46. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 761 Janki Narayan Bhoir
LA No. 63/2011 Page No. 46 of 50
versus Narayan Namdeo Kadam, it is held that:
Satya Pal Chopra vs State & Ors on 21 March, 2011
36. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the
authority in Satya Pal Chopra v. State & Ors. reported in 2011
STPL(DJ) 2213 DELHI wherein it is held that "contradiction in the
testimony of witnesses minor in nature since the evidence was
recorded after a gap of many years and memory can fade", is not fatal
to the case.