submitted, the respondent should not have been permitted to lead parol evidence in support of the contention. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that ... trial court was right in permitting the respondent to lead parol evidence in support of her plea that the sale deed dated January
submitted, the respondent should not have been permitted to lead parol evidence in support of the contention. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that ... trial court was right in permitting the respondent to lead parol evidence in support of her plea that the sale deed dated January
submitted, the respondent should not have been permitted to lead parol evidence in support of the contention. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that ... trial court was right in permitting the respondent to lead parol evidence in support of her plea that the sale deed dated January
winds Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both the Courts below simply accepted the oral evidence of the landlord as though the monthly rent ... clause and averment, the plaintiffs should not have been permitted to adduce evidence. Having chosen to get incorporated in the lease deed itself the monthly
Mrs.Suseela vs P.M.Veeraragavan on 31 March, 2011
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G
Kennady vs G.Gokulakrishnan on 15 March, 2011
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN
