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

2000 Supreme(MP) 107

S.C.PANDEY
CHATRA PRATAP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
TULSI PRASAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.P.AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL

S. C. PANDEY,J.

( 1 ) THIS revision, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 6-8-1999 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 51-A/1998, whereby the Court below has rejected an application marked as I. A. No. 22.

( 2 ) IN that application, it was prayed by the applicant that he relied on the Will dated 2-2-1987 executed by Late Moti Bai. That Will was in her possession and after her death, the will was not found by the applicant. It was further alleged that this document was a registered document and, therefore, the applicant filed a certified copy of the Will for the purpose of proving the Will. It was also alleged that both the attesting witnesses of the Will had expired. It was urged that the Court be pleased to grant permission to the applicant to lead secondary evidence in the shape of certified copy of the Will.

( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court, is of the opinion that sections 65 or 66 of the Evidence Act do not require an application. In fact, this application purported to be an application for examining an officer from the office of the Sub-Registrar who would depose










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