Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Bakhshish Singh – Appellant
Versus
Didar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for setting aside the order on the will (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the burden of proof and rebuttal evidence (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on the evidence and timing (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. conclusion of dismissal of the petition (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant seeking setting aside of order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the ld. Additional Civil Judge, vide which the Court below has allowed application of the plaintiff for permission of comparison of thumb impression of late Sh. Sadhu Singh s/o Tara Singh appearing on the Will dated 18.01.2012, with the thumb impression of Sadhu Singh appearing on the endorsement of the relinquishment deed dated 12.08.2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit dated 01.11.2012 (Annexure P1) praying for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendants are joint owners to the extent of half share in the suit property; Will dated 18.01.2012 in favour of the petitioner was forged and fabricated and was not binding upon the plaintiff; and mutation No.6900 on the basis o
The court upheld the lower court's decision allowing thumb impression comparison, highlighting that the right to rebuttal exists when new evidence is presented after the closure of opposing evidence.
The plaintiff is entitled to present rebuttal evidence regarding a Will introduced after the closure of his affirmative evidence, emphasizing procedural fairness in the burden of proof.
The court confirmed that once a party has closed its affirmative evidence, it cannot reopen the case in rebuttal unless exceptional circumstances exist, maintaining the integrity of fair trial princi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff does not have a right to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff, as per the interpre....
The propounder of a Will is required to prove the Will and furnish explanation for suspicious circumstances, with the primary onus on the defendant.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow additional evidence for thumb impression comparison, emphasizing the necessity of expert opinion in determining the authenticity of documents in s....
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
