Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.29 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
The respondents have alleged that the Wills Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 have
not been proved according to law and the two attesting witnesses namely Sh. Deepak Chand
and Sh. Gopi have not been examined by the petitioner. Respondents' objection is not
sustainable. Both the Wills are Registered Wills and there is presumption in favor of the
registered documents that such documents are validly executed. Reference may be had to
cases Prem Singh v. Birbal, AIR 2006 SC 3608; Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Zabar, AIR 2010 SC
Abdul Rahim & Ors vs Sk.Abdul Zabar & Ors on 6 March, 2009
The respondents have alleged that the Wills Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 have
not been proved according to law and the two attesting witnesses namely Sh. Deepak Chand
and Sh. Gopi have not been examined by the petitioner. Respondents' objection is not
sustainable. Both the Wills are Registered Wills and there is presumption in favor of the
registered documents that such documents are validly executed. Reference may be had to
cases Prem Singh v. Birbal, AIR 2006 SC 3608; Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Zabar, AIR 2010 SC
Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo on 23 March, 2009
211. Besides the presumption on a registered document that it is validly executed, there is
also a presumption that the "transaction is a genuine one" (Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain
v. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo, 2009- 5 SCC 713.). The onus of proof, thus, would be on a
person who questions the same. In this case, respondents have not produced any evidence to
show that the Will Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 are not genuine documents and the
respondents have failed to rebut the presumption. In any case, the present matter is not about
the genuiness or otherwise of the above said Wills and the petitioner was not required to
RC ARC 08/20 Page no. 5/19
prove these Wills by calling the attesting witnesses. Thus, the apparent conclusion is that
petitioner is the owner of the property which comprises of the tenanted shop.