D.K.SETH
HARI SHANKER – Appellant
Versus
JAG DEYEE – Respondent
D. K. SETH, J.
( 1 ) IN a suit claiming right over a property by the plaintiff on the basis of the Will, the defendant had claimed that he happens to be the owner of the property. Accordingly, an issue was framed being issue No. 4 as to whether the defendant was the successor of one Baldeo and was the owner of the property. The learned trial court had found that the Will produced by the plaintiff was forged one and the plaintiff and his witness Mool Chandra were guilty of giving false evidence producing forged documents for which a cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the plaintiff along with the direction for initiation of the proceedings under Section 195. read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; while Mool Chandra was directed to be proceeded against under Section 420/467/468/471. I. P. C. . while a cost of Rs. 1,000 was also imposed on the defendant on account of giving false evidence.
( 2 ) THE defendant preferred an appeal challenging the said imposition of cost as well as the finding with regard to issue Nos. 4 and 8 respectively. The learned trial court reversed the imposition of cost on the defendant on account of giving false evidence white it had also reject
REFERRED TO : Jaga Dhish v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava
Jugal Kishore v. Sheonandan Singh
Banarasi Sah.v. Bhagwanlal Sah
Midnapore Zamindari Company Ltd, v. Naresh Ranjan Roy
Smt.Tarabai Mohata v. Union of India
Mathura Bai v. Ram Krishna Bhaskar Barve
Commissioner for the Port of Calcutta v. Bhairadinram Durga Prasad
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.