Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993
11. To support the plea of adverse possession Mr. Kar
Bhowmik, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex
court in Parsinni(Dead) and Others vs. Sukhi and Others
reported in (1993) 4 SCC 375, where the apex court had
occasion to observe as under:
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
16. The plea of the defendant is the part-performance
unambiguously based a sale agreement [oral] and he has
categorically and definitely admitted that in part-performance of
the sale agreement he was handed over the possession. Except
making a general statement, he could not show the nature of
Page 13 of 17
RSA 27 of 2013
possession whether it was ever changed its nature on
demonstration of adversity. Hence, the plea of adverse possession
as raised by the defendant is bound to fall through. The other
question that surfaces for response is that whether the title has
been proved by the plaintiff-respondents or not. The trial court by
taking aid of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act has
held that since the procedure has not been followed disclosing the
custody and proving that the document falls within the categories
of 'copies' as laid down in Section 65 of the Evidence Act those
cannot be admitted in the evidence. For this reason, this court is
to revisit the plaint where it has been stated that:
Chandra vs M.Thangmuthu & Anr on 7 September, 2010
In M. Chandra Vs. M.
Thangamuthu and Another reported in (2010) 9 SCC 712, the
apex court has held that:
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Registration Act, 1908
Smt. J. Yashoda vs Smt. K. Shobha Rani on 19 April, 2007
8. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has defended the
judgment dated 20.12.2000 passed by the trial court. He has
further referred to a few decisions in support of his contention that
unless the requirement of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act is
observed, the secondary evidence cannot be admitted in the
evidence. For the appellant, the following decisions have been
relied on. Bidhan Paul vs. Paresh Chandra Ghosh reported in
AIR 2002 Gauhati 46, Narattam Das vs. Md. Masadar Ali
Barbhuiya reported in 1991 (1) GLR 197 and J. Yashoda vs.
K. Shobha Rani reported in 2007(5) SCC 730. In all those
judgments it has been held that a private sale deed or a partition
Page 9 of 17
RSA 27 of 2013
deed cannot come within the meaning of Section 74(2) or for that
purpose under Section 77 of Evidence Act. In the matter of private
documents, not being the public documents, the condition of
Section 65 shall be observed before secondary evidence can be
admitted. Secondary evidence or the content thereof cannot be
admitted without production of the original being first accounted
for in such a manner as provided in Section 65 of the Evidence
Act.