In Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745, where Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue".
SEARCH
CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG
-
▼
2011
(94)
-
▼
January
(11)
- ALWAYS THE LAW & RULES PREVAIL AND NOT THE EXECUT...
- If for any reason, the taluk office do not have th...
- PRESUMPTION IN PTCL CASES
- KHARAB LAND AND CONVERSION CLARIFIED BY JUSTICE AN...
- IMPORTANCE OF SOURCE OF TITLE RATHER THAN LONG ENT...
- CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ON GOVERNMENT LAND ENCROACHER...
- CONCEPT OF EQUALITY, JURISDICTION, WRONGS AND MIS...
- CHANGES IN HINDU PERSONAL LAWS
- PROOF OF A DOCUMENT MERE MARKING OF DOCUMENT IS NO...
- NO LITIGANT IS HAVING RIGHT TO WATE COURT TIME
- EVERY COURT HAS TO FOLLOW STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS E...
-
▼
January
(11)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment