Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.86 seconds)
G.Rajagopal (Died) vs M.B.Ganapathy Iyer (Died) on 23 November, 2022 cites

Aher Rama Gova And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 1979

In another judgment reported as Aher Rama Gova & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 1979 (4) SCC 500, the secondary evidence of dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate was produced in evidence. This Court found that though the original dying declaration was not produced but from the evidence, it is clear that the original was lost and was not available. The Magistrate himself deposed on oath that he had given the original dying declaration to the Head Constable whereas the Head Constable deposed that he had made a copy of the same and given it back to the Magistrate. Therefore, the Court found that the original dying declaration was not available and the prosecution was entitled to give secondary evidence which consisted of the 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.166 of 2018 statement of the Magistrate as also of the Head Constable who had made a copy from the original. Thus, the secondary evidence of dying declaration was admitted in evidence, though no application to lead secondary evidence was filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - S M Ali - Full Document

Palaniammal vs Pappathi on 25 April, 2013

Palaniammal and another Vs. Pappathi and others “23.The question whether the defendants were justified in not adequately explaining about the non-production of the original Will as contained in Ex.B1, gains significance. D.W.1 during cross-examination is presumed to have uttered out a fact to the effect that the original Will as contained in Ex.B1 was handed over to P1-Pappathi. But strictly in accordance with law, by invoking Order 11 of C.P.C, the defendants did not resort to discovery and inspection. But one fact is clear that an explanation came forth from the defendants' side that the original Will as contained in Ex.B1 was not in their possession and that it was with Pappathi-P1, but she was not examined to contradict and torpedo such claim.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Dhanpat vs Sheo Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs. on 19 March, 2020

Dhanpat Vs. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others “15. In a judgment reported as M. Ehtisham Ali for himself and in place of M. Sakhawat Ali, since deceased v. Jamna Prasad, since deceased and others, AIR 1922 PC 56, the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit on the basis of a sale deed. During trial, the stand of the plaintiffs was that the original sale deed was lost but since it was registered, secondary evidence by way of a certified copy prepared by the office of the Registrar was produced. It was not disputed that the copy produced was not the correct copy of the registered document. The suit was dismissed for the reason that the plaintiffs have not succeeded in satisfactorily establishing the loss of the original sale deed. The Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 64 - H Gupta - Full Document

Valliammal @ Mani vs Sadayappan on 7 September, 2015

Valliammal @ Mani Vs. Sadayappan and others “27.In the present case, DW-1 has stated in his evidence that one of the attesting witness Shanmugam had mentioned about Ex.B1 Will. The original Will was not able to be traced and hence the certified copy was obtained and filed before the Court. The non- availability of the original Will has been explained by DW-1 and there is no contra evidence available to the effect that the 2nd and 3rd defendants had deliberately withheld or suppressed the original Will. It is now a well settled law that where the original Will has been lost and it has been properly explained, the certified copy of the Will can be acted upon as secondary evidence.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1