SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(All) 244

N.N.MITHAL
LACHCHO – Appellant
Versus
DWARI MAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.BANERJEE, K.K.SHARMA, KRISHAN SAXENA, V.K.BARMAN

N. N. MITHAL, J.


( 1 ) IN this Second Appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment, only one point has been urged in support of the appeal. The appellant urges that on the evidence on the record, the copy of the notice has not been proved in accordance with S. 63 of the Evidence Act since it is not the compared copy of the original and as such should not have been taken into consideration while decreeing the plaintiffs suit.

( 2 ) THE appellant has admitted that a notice had been sent by the plaintiff and it was duly replied to by her and her original reply is also on the record as also the draft of the notice prepared by the plaintiffs counsel. The learned counsel has submitted that before a document can be tendered as secondary evidence, it must be established that the requirements of one of the five clauses of S. 63 had been complied with. S. 3 of the Evidence Act defines evidence which means oral and documentary evidence. Oral evidence is dealt with in Chapter IV while documentary evidence has been dealt with in Chapter V of the Act and deals primarily with the proof of contents of documents. Documentary evidence itself is divided into two parts - primary and secondary and af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top