Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Smt. Chandrakantaben, Wife Of ... vs Vadilal Sapalal Modi And Ors. on 30 March, 1989
The law
in this regard is well settled that the possession of an
agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also possession
of the Principal [Chandrakantaben,Narendra Jayantilal Modi
v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and Ors. (1989 (2) SCC 630)].
Thus, we do not find any circumstance in the present cases
against the second respondent to hold that the suit is
barred by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act.
Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. Rs. & ... on 20 January, 1977
43. There is one more reason to discard the contention
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent. Ext. B1 deposition is a previous statement of
Sidharthan, and hence the law requires that the attention
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
63
2025:KER:61859
of the witness has to be drawn to the contradictory part
of his previous statement, for giving him a chance to
explain about it. Unless that procedure contemplated in
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (which corresponds
to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Abhiniyam, 2023)
is followed, the court cannot consider that the relevant
part of the previous statement is proved. Although the
previous statement made by a party to the proceedings can
be considered as a piece of admission, his attention to
such contradictory portions has necessarily to be drawn to
it before the statement is proved. The Apex Court in Sita
Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (AIR 1977 SC 1712)
held as above, distinguishing the view expressed in Bharat
Singh v. Bhagirati (AIR 1966 SC 405). Above all, what
appears from his previous statement is only that he was
referring to the plots remaining available after Sindhu
Sidharthan executed a series of conveyance deeds based on
the Power of Attorney. It is difficult to interpret the
said statement as an admission that, except the said four
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
64
2025:KER:61859
properties at Poonthole, Engandiyur and Padur villages,
the properties are in the possession of the purported
purchasers.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968
John Henry Wigmore, in his Treatise on Evidence in Trials
at Common Law (3rd Edn., Little, Brown & Co., Boston,
1940, Section 1079), has observed that "admissions of one
joint tortfeasor are receivable against another, on the
same principle and with the same limitations, as those of
conspirators; this is merely the same doctrine in its
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
70
2025:KER:61859
application to civil liability for torts." Though this
principle is seldom invoked in civil proceedings, it has
been held in Rishi Kesh Singh and Others v. State [AIR
1970 All 51 (FB)] that the provisions of the Evidence Act
are equally applicable to civil and criminal proceedings,
unless expressly excluded.