Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)Section 103 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mst. Kharbuja Kuer vs Jangbahadur Rai on 9 April, 1962
22. The reversal of burden in case of illiterate and rustic woman may be a rule that is dependent on dynamic social conditions. The kind of illiterate and rustic women, who are entitled to the same protection as pardanashin women in contemporary time, may be a dying breed with more empowerment of women in rural areas as well, but this case has arisen in the decade of eighties of the last century, when conditions were not very different from what obtained in the context when the rule was invented and applied. It is also clear by the distinction noticed in Mahendra Singh that a plea of fraud and misrepresentation by a defendant is generically different from a plea of non est factum. Once an illiterate and rustic woman urges a plea of non est factum, the underlying fraud or misrepresentation pleaded is not material. What is material is non est factum, which means no more than this that handicapped by her utter illiteracy and lack of acquaintance with the ways of the world, she was incapable of understanding the nature of the transaction that she went about and affixed her mark to. Once that plea is urged, the burden of proof would certainly lie on the beneficiary of the document executed by an illiterate and rustic woman to affirmatively show that she understood clearly the nature of transaction and what she was undertaking to do by her solemn deed. This burden of proof cast upon the beneficiary of the transaction, embodied in the document, can be discharged not only by leading evidence to show that the document was explained to her and she understood it, but by other evidence, direct and circumstantial, as held in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and others, AIR 1963 SC 1203. The relevant part has been extracted in the decision of this Court in Mahendra Singh.
Manohar Lal vs Smt. Rajeshwari Devi And Anr. on 31 March, 1976
The extension of the rule to an illiterate widow was acknowledged by this Court in Manohar Lal vs. Rajeshwari Devi and others, AIR 1977 All 36.
Sm. Sonia Parshini vs Sheikh Moula Baksha on 6 July, 1954
In Sm. Sonia Parshini vs. Sheikh Moula Baksha, AIR 1955 Cal 17, Debabrata Mukharjee, J, speaking for the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, posed the following question, opening the judgment:
Chidambaram Pillai And Ors. vs Muthammal And Ors. on 16 October, 1992
Their Lordships of the Division Bench in Chidambaram Pillai (supra) have expounded and summarized the principles about extension of the rule regarding reversal of burden to illiterate women, thus:
K.N.Nagarajappa vs H.Narasimha Reddy on 9 September, 2021
In this connection, reference may be made to the authority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K.N. Nagarajappa and others v. H. Narasimha Reddy, AIR 2021 SC 4259, where it has been held:
Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors on 19 October, 2010
In the judgment reported as Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board2, this court held as follows:
Jagdish Singh vs Natthu Singh on 25 November, 1991
27. There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter i.e. that the findings of fact are found to be perverse. But the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in a routine and casual manner by substituting its subjective satisfaction in place of that of the lower courts. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647]; Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan [(1999) 6 SCC 343] and Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali [(2010) 12 SCC 740].)