Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Ramadhin Singh vs Siaram Singh And Anr. on 5 April, 1956
In the decision in the case of Ramadhin
Singh vs. Siaram Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 1957
Patna 64(Supra), the principle that the plaintiff cannot
obviously take advantage himself of the weakness of the
defence and the plaintiff's case must stand or fall upon the
evidence adduced by him while enunciating the settled legal
proposition, the High Court held that the question of onus is
of no practical value at all where both the parties have
adduced evidence.
K. S. Nanji And Company vs Jatashankar Dossa And Others on 22 March, 1961
In the case of K.S.Ranji and Co. vs.
Jatashankar Dossa, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1474 while
elaborating and discussing on the concept of the phrase
"burden of proof" as a matter of law and pleading, the
Supreme Court has observed in para 11:
Koopilan Uneen'S Daughter Pathumma & ... vs Koopilan Uneen'S Son Kuntalan Kutty ... on 6 August, 1981
25. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pathumma
and others vs. Kuntalan Kutty, reported in (1981) 3
SCC 589 has held that the appellate or revisional court can
entertain an objection as to the place of suing on fulfillment
of the three essential conditions enunciated in Section 21(1)
C.P.C.:
Section 21 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh on 2 May, 2006
In this context it is pertinent to note the
observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi vs.
Gurbaksh Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 558 wherein in
para 19, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-