Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
H. Siddiqui (D) By Lr vs A. Ramalingam on 4 March, 2011
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
H.SIDDIQUI (dead) BY L.Rs. v/s A.RAMALINGAM
reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492, while considering
provisions under Section 65 of 1872 Act, at paragraphs
10, 11 and 12 has held as follows:
The Roman Catholic Mission vs State Of Madras And Another on 14 January, 1966
Mere admission of a
document in evidence does not amount to its
proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is
required to be proved in accordance with law. The
court has an obligation to decide the question of
admissibility of a document in secondary evidence
before making endorsement thereon. (Vide: The
Roman Catholilc Mission & Anr. v. The State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1457; State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., AIR 2000 SC
1759; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.
14
v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491;
and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr.,
(2010) 9 SCC 712).
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Khemraj And Ors. on 10 January, 2000
Mere admission of a
document in evidence does not amount to its
proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is
required to be proved in accordance with law. The
court has an obligation to decide the question of
admissibility of a document in secondary evidence
before making endorsement thereon. (Vide: The
Roman Catholilc Mission & Anr. v. The State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1457; State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., AIR 2000 SC
1759; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.
14
v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491;
and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr.,
(2010) 9 SCC 712).
L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen on 16 March, 2010
Mere admission of a
document in evidence does not amount to its
proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is
required to be proved in accordance with law. The
court has an obligation to decide the question of
admissibility of a document in secondary evidence
before making endorsement thereon. (Vide: The
Roman Catholilc Mission & Anr. v. The State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1457; State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., AIR 2000 SC
1759; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.
14
v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491;
and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr.,
(2010) 9 SCC 712).
Chandra vs M.Thangmuthu & Anr on 7 September, 2010
Mere admission of a
document in evidence does not amount to its
proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is
required to be proved in accordance with law. The
court has an obligation to decide the question of
admissibility of a document in secondary evidence
before making endorsement thereon. (Vide: The
Roman Catholilc Mission & Anr. v. The State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1457; State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., AIR 2000 SC
1759; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.
14
v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491;
and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr.,
(2010) 9 SCC 712).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gafarsab @ Sati Gafar Sab vs Ameer Ahamed on 29 September, 2005
In GAFARSAB case,
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has made it clear
that, if the Court is satisfied from the evidence, though a
case is made out for production of secondary evidence it
can permit the party to adduce secondary evidence,
subject to Sections 63 and 65 of 1872 Act. This Court
was of the opinion that if the party seeking permission
16
to produce secondary evidence satisfies Sections 63 and
65 of 1872 Act, only then, the Court could permit
marking Xerox copy as secondary evidence.
1