Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 90 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
In that view of the matter, it is obvious that no presumption of law can be drawn in respect of the document which is 30 years old document in respect of the will which has not been produced on record though it was available and thus it is clear that so called wilt which is said to have been executed by Mahadev was not duly proved as is required by law as per the provisions of Sections 63, 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimmajamma (cited supra). Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same stands dismissed with no costs.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gulabrao Maruti Bhagat vs Bhagwan Nana Bhagat on 8 December, 2000
In support of these submissions, he relied on the decision of the single Bench of this Court in the case of Gulabrao v. Bhagwan 2001 (2) Mh. LJ. 665 : 2001 AIHC 2146.