Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password


Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Evidence

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Evidence — Contrary to pleadings — Effect — Held, when what is pleaded is not proved, or what is stated in the evidence is contrary to the pleadings, the dictum that no amount of evidence, contrary to the pleadings, howsoever cogent, can be relied on, would apply.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Evidence — Matters involving personal knowledge — The position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge, held, is summarised below: 

 (a) An attorney holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. 

 (b) If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved. 

(c) The attorney holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge. 

(d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders. 

 (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney holder, the principal has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder. 

 (f) Where different attorney holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney holders will have to be examined. 

(g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his ‘state of mind’ or ‘conduct’, normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his ‘bona fide’ need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his ‘readiness and willingness’ fall under this category. There is however a recognized exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or ‘readiness and willingness’. Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Evidence — Suggestion made but assertively denied does not constitute evidence.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Evidence — Filing of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry would not partake the character of admissible evidence in a court of law — That documentary evidence was also required to be proved by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Evidence — Unless comprehensive view of the entire evidence is taken in the proper perspective, a correct conclusion may not be possible.

Act Topic
Rule Citation
Free Text Search
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.