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

1921 Supreme(All) 353

WALLACH, WALSH
Asharfi Lal – Appellant
Versus
Musammat Nannhi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walsh and Wallach, JJ. - We think this appeal must be allowed. The finding of fact is that none of the attesting witnesses saw the executants put their signatures on the deeds. We cannot interfere with this finding. It seems to us somewhat narrow and pedantic, inasmuch as they were present and one would have thought that it was not unreasonable to presume that they saw what they were there to see. But this question is irrelevant. It does not matter whether they proved it or whether they did not. There is an admission of the execution of this document on the pleadings in the case, and Section 70 of the Evidence Act, which appears to have been overlooked in the courts below, provides that the admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. That section, placed where it is amongst the sections which provide for the calling of attesting witnesses, clearly could only have been intended to dispense with calling such witnesses, and with proving formal execution a case where the party has admitted it. We are not prepared to hold that that secti

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