Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (1.77 seconds)Dolgobinda Paricha vs Nimai Charan Misra & Others on 27 April, 1959
8. Mr. Ramdas contends that the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 could not have been accepted by the courts below in view of the fact that they were not competent to depose about the fact of marriage and the standard laid down regarding admissibility of evidence to show such relationship with reference to the provisions of Section 50 of the Evidence Act has been lost sight of by the lower appellate court. He emphasised on the principles indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1959 SC 914 (Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan) and also contended that the presumption arising out of continuous living was a rebuttable one as has been held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1952 SC 231 (Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari).
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Adhikari Narayanamma vs Adhikari Thabitinaidu on 31 March, 1964
Courts in India have taken the view that where the donor and the donee live together under the same roof and where they are closely related, delivery of possession may not be necessary and making over of the document and its acceptance may tantamount to acceptance of the gift. Reference may be made to the case in AIR 1964 Orissa 212 (Narayanamma v. Thabitinaidu) for the purpose. In that view of the matter, I would also hold that that the gift had been accepted during the lifetime of Ramamurty and as such was complete and objection cannot be taken by the plaintiff that the gift had not been acted upon.
1