Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Raj Kumar And Ors. vs Hardwari And Ors. on 28 July, 2006 cites

Hemanta Kumar Das vs Alliantz Und Stuttgarter Life ... on 28 July, 1937

In this regard reliance has been placed on Hemanta Kumar Das v. Alliantz Und Stuttgarter Life Insurance Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1938 Calcutta 120. This was a case where certified entries from register of death were produced by a Clerk who had no knowledge about the entries. In this background, it was held that copy of entry is admissible in evidence as proof of entry but not of the contents of the death. This case cannot be of any help to the appellants. This argument apparently can not be accepted in view of the other material on record. Sale deed in this regard has been exhibited on record as Ex.D2. The counsel for the appellants did not point out before me if any objection was raised on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs when this document was produced and exhibited on record. Once sale deed was proved and taken on record as exhibit, it cannot be discarded or ignored from consideration in evidence. The submission made by the counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs that the contents of the sale deed were not proved also cannot be accepted. Once this document was exhibited on record and marked as such, the contents thereof would stand proved. The sale deed contains certificate of the sub-registrar showing that the vendors had admitted having received a sum of Rs. 1,900/-prior to the execution of the sale deed whereas balance amount of Rs. 1,100/- was paid at the time of registration of this document. This in itself is sufficient evidence to show that this sale was for consideration and the consideration had indeed been passed to respondents No. 2 and 3. Submission of the counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs that the burden was on respondent No. 1 defendant to prove the sale consideration is again legally unacceptable. Appellant-plaintiffs had filed this suit with the allegation that this sale was without consideration and, accordingly, he was asserting this fact. As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, whosoever desire any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. Burden of proof in suit for proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence was given from either side. Since the case set up by the appellant-plaintiffs was that this sale was without consideration, burden of proof was on him as he was asserting the said fact.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo vs Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat And Others on 9 March, 1954

9. While dealing with some what similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Baku Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and Ors. held that burden of proving that no consideration was passed under promissory note executed by a person would be on him who denies it. In the case of Shiv Dass v. Smt. Devki (1978) 80 P.L.R, 390, it was held that registration of a document is a solemn act to be performed in the presence of competent officer whose function is to ensure that proper person was before him in his official capacity and verified by his signatures will be presumed to be in order and duly done. Thus, registered sale deed would be a proof of admission of receipt of consideration made before the Registrar. It was also submitted that adverse inference needs to be drawn against the respondent No. 2-defendant for not leading any evidence regarding passing of sale consideration. Once, respondent No. 1 had produced and proved on record the sale deed, the passing of sale consideration also was established. Accordingly, no adverse inference is needed to be drawn. Even the burden was on the appellants-plaintiffs to prove the fact of non passing of sale consideration and, as such, question of drawing adverse inference against respondent No. 1-defendant would not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Parsa Singh vs Smt. Parkash Kaur And Ors. on 10 November, 1975

Similarly, the cases relied upon by the counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs reported as Parsa Singh v. Smt. Parkash Kaur and Ors. (1976) 78 P.L.R. 21 and Gutari v. Shiv Charan and Ors. 1980 Hindu Law Reporter 273 would also be of no avail to the appellants. Both the cases related to a registered 'will' and it was held that it is not a public document and hence certified copy thereof cannot be given as secondary evidence. The submission made by the counsel for respondent No. 1-defendant that the appellant-plaintiffs have not been able to explain the earlier suit filed challenging the same sale deed which was dismissed, cannot be ignored. It may also need a notice that vendors in this case were none else than the fathers of the appellants-plaintiffs and they also were not produced as witnesses. Counsel for respondent No. 1-defendant is justified in submitting that they could have easily been produced to show that no consideration was received by them. Thus, the best evidence, which could have been led by the appellant-plaintiffs to show that no sale consideration in fact was passed in this case was withheld. Under these circumstances, finding any fault on the part of respondent No. 1- defendant in not entering into the witness box and leading evidence through his attorney and providing Ex.D1, sale deed would be of no avail.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Shiv Dass & Ors vs Smt. Devki & Ors on 7 March, 1995

9. While dealing with some what similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Baku Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and Ors. held that burden of proving that no consideration was passed under promissory note executed by a person would be on him who denies it. In the case of Shiv Dass v. Smt. Devki (1978) 80 P.L.R, 390, it was held that registration of a document is a solemn act to be performed in the presence of competent officer whose function is to ensure that proper person was before him in his official capacity and verified by his signatures will be presumed to be in order and duly done. Thus, registered sale deed would be a proof of admission of receipt of consideration made before the Registrar. It was also submitted that adverse inference needs to be drawn against the respondent No. 2-defendant for not leading any evidence regarding passing of sale consideration. Once, respondent No. 1 had produced and proved on record the sale deed, the passing of sale consideration also was established. Accordingly, no adverse inference is needed to be drawn. Even the burden was on the appellants-plaintiffs to prove the fact of non passing of sale consideration and, as such, question of drawing adverse inference against respondent No. 1-defendant would not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1