Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 50 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya & Ors on 15 January, 2008
[See Tulsa (supra)]. A heavy burden, thus,
lies on the person who seeks to prove that no marriage
has taken place.
Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali ... vs Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni And Another on 12 January, 1996
12. It is also well settled that a presumption of a valid
marriage although is a rebuttable one, it is for the other
party to establish the same. {See Ranganath Parmeshwar
Panditrao Modi v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni [(1996) 7 SCC
681], and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy [(2005) 2 SCC 244]}. Such a presumption can be
validly raised having regard to Section 50 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors on 28 January, 2005
12. It is also well settled that a presumption of a valid
marriage although is a rebuttable one, it is for the other
party to establish the same. {See Ranganath Parmeshwar
Panditrao Modi v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni [(1996) 7 SCC
681], and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy [(2005) 2 SCC 244]}. Such a presumption can be
validly raised having regard to Section 50 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Mohabbat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khan on 7 March, 1929
In Mohabhat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan. Their
Lordships of the Privy Council once again laid down that:
Challamma vs Tilaga & Ors on 31 July, 2009
[15] The apex court in Challamma vs Tilaga and Others reported
in (2009) 9 SCC 299 observed in the following manner:
1