ANSHUMAN
Suresh Kumar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Uma Devi – Respondent
Dr. Anshuman, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1987 and 22.07.1987 passed and prepared respectively in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1975 by Mr. P. L. Kaungari, 5th Addl. District Judge, Siwan, reversing and setting aside the judgment dated 11.08.1975 and decree dated 28.08.1975 passed and prepared respectively by Mr. Prem Narain Shukla, First Munsif, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1966.
2. The original appellant No. 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs of the title suit in which respondent No. 1 to 6 of present appeal were defendants and after decree of the title suit No. 2 of 1966 in favour of the original plaintiffs, original respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred Title Appeal No. 33 of 1975 in which the original appellants of memo of second appeal were respondents first set and original defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were respondent second set. The said appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the original plaintiffs-respondents first set had preferred the present second appeal which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 331 of 1987. But with the span of time, parties died and at their place, heirs and legal representatives of the respective parties were subs
Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited vs. Regency Mahavir Properties
(1) Secondary evidence – Certified copy of a sale deed could be produced as secondary evidence of public document and could be produced in proof of contents of public document or part of public docum....
The admissibility of public documents requires corroborative evidence to establish claims of familial relationships; civil suits challenging property mutations remain maintainable under specific prov....
The appellate court's discretion in admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 is affirmed, emphasizing that such evidence must be relevant to the case for it to impact the court's decisio....
Photocopies of public documents are admissible as evidence if authenticated by testimony, mitigating previous rejections based on technical evidence rules.
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.