Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Mst. Kharbuja Kuer vs Jangbahadur Rai on 9 April, 1962
19. Panpauri filed the suit for declaration wherein it was specifically
pleaded that "the plaintiff is an illiterate and pardanasheen lady." This fact has
also been admitted by Nanku (one of the defendants), and the same has been
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:48:51 :::
RSA no.3120-1996 (O&M) 11
noticed by the courts below. Counsel for Panpauri contends that this plea was
specifically pleaded in the plaint and urged before the courts below. He relies
upon Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai & Ors., 1963 (1) SCR 456, and
submits that it is settled law that in the case of a pardanasheen lady, the burden
lies upon the person relying on the document to establish that it was executed
after the executant fully understood its contents. He argues that the burden was
on the defendants to prove that Panpauri executed the Mukhtiarnama after
knowing its contents and impact. However, neither the petition writer nor any
witness was produced by the contesting defendants to prove due execution.
Another witness, Ramchander Sarpanch, though alive, was also not produced,
entitling the Court to draw an adverse inference.
Section 19 in The Punjab Courts Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
1