Back
S.SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P.WADHWA
VIDHYADHAR – Appellant
Versus
Mankikrao – Respondent
In legal proceedings, it is generally not mandatory for a defendant to produce evidence if the plaintiff has already provided evidence through cross-examination. The burden of proof primarily rests on the plaintiff to establish their case, and the defendant’s role is often to challenge or rebut that evidence.
However, the defendant may choose to present evidence to support their defenses or to clarify facts, but they are not obliged to do so solely because the plaintiff has been cross-examined. The defendant’s evidence becomes relevant when it can substantiate their position or counter the plaintiff’s claims.
Ultimately, the necessity for the defendant to produce evidence depends on the specifics of the case and whether their evidence is essential to establish a fact or defense. It is not a mandatory requirement that the defendant must produce evidence simply because the plaintiff has been cross-examined (!) (!) .
Judgment
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) VIDHYADHAR, the appellant before us, who shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff, had instituted a suit against the respondents, who shall hereinafter be referred to as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, for redemption of the mortgage by conditional sale or in the alternative for a decree for specific performance of the contract for repurchase which was decreed by the trial Court on 29-4-1975. The decree was upheld by the Lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 28-9-1976 but the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 3-5-1991, set aside both the judgments and passed a unique order to which a reference shall be made presently in this judgment. The plaintiff is in appeal before us. 2a. The property in dispute is 4. 04 acres of land of survey plot No. 15 of Kasba Amdapur, District Buldana. The whole area of survey plot No. 15 is 16. 09 acres and except the land in dispute, namely, an area of 4. 04 acres, the entire land is in possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was the owner of the whole Plot No. 15. On 24th of March, 1971, he executed a document styled as "kararkharedi" in favour of defendant No. 1 for a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
