Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the sides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra) has categorically held that the expert evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. In the present case there is a substantive evidence produced by the appellant in support of the execution of the rent note Ex.A.1 is that the Jagdish Rai AW3 who is the scribe of the rent note. His evidence has been rejected by the Rent Controller on the ground that he was a Munim with Pawan Kumar brother of Ashok Kumar appellant. The other witness AW4 is Ram Dhan and the evidence of Ram Dhan has been rejected by the Rent Controller that he stood surety for Om Parkash brother of the present appellant. I do not agree with the findings of the Rent Controller that both these witnesses are interested witnesses so their evidence should be discarded on that ground. Merely, working of Jagdish Rai as Munim with the brother of the appellant and Ram Dhan who stood surety for Om Parkash is no ground to reject their evidence on that score, because the evidence of the respondents consisting of RW4 Lal Singh, RW5 Darshan Singh and RW6 Kaka Singh does not inspire confidence, because of the fact that rent note was not executed in their presence. They are the neighboured and, therefore, naturally are interested witnesses. So in view of the clear evidence of the appellant, I hold that the rent note was executed by Jagrup Singh in favour of the appellant.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 15 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 17 April, 1995
21. The counsel for the petitioner Shri Gupta, then placed reliance on A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1607, S. V.R. Mudaliar v. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari, and submitted that the judgment of the appellate authority has taken note of the reasons given by the trial Court when it has dismissed the petition under Section 13. The cited judgment is not helpful to him. I have already quoted above the reasons of both the Courts. This Court has independently assessed the evidence and is of the opinion that there is no proof of direct tenancy as allegedly propounded by Shri Lal Singh on 1.7.1976.
Amar Singh vs Tej Ram And Anr. on 18 November, 1981
The counsel Shri Gupta, also placed a reliance on (1982)84 P.L.R. 237 Amar Singh v. Tej Ram, and submitted that oral evidence can be led by the petitioner Shri Lal Singh with regard to the rent note allegedly executed on 1.7.1976 when the landlord is withholding that document. I have held above that there is no satisfactory proof that any written tenancy was created on 1.7.1976. The defence has been taken up for the sake of defence in order to deprive the landlord of the rent as well as his possession. Plea of direct tenancy is a false. It is not proved at all. Probabilities are working against Shri Lal Singh.
Puranchandra Murarilal Garg vs M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board ... on 10 November, 1997
22. Also reliance was placed on A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 531, Murarilal v. State of M.P., and my attention was invited to para No. 11 and 12 of the judgment.
Haran Chandra Chakravarti And Anr. vs Kaliprasanna Sarkar on 2 June, 1931
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has arguedthat under Section 2 sub-section 7 of the Indian Registration Act a rent note or Kabuliat is a lease and rent note is from year to year and it requires compulsory registration under Section 17(l)(d) of the Indian Registration Act and in support of that contention he has relied upon A.I.R. 1932 Calcutta page 83(2) in case Haran Chandra Chakravarti and Anr. v. Kaliprasanna Sarkar, A.I.R. 1925 Lahore 491 in case Ata Muhammad and Ors. v. Shankar Das and Ors., A.I.R. 1935 Oudh.