IEA 102 : Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:
On whom burden of proof lies.—The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B’s father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.
India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 102 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Narayan Govind Gavate Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 1976 - Supreme Court of India
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court
Ashitkumar vs Sonalben on 13 October, 2008 - Gujarat High Court
Jogendra Krishna Banerji And Ors. vs Sm. Subasini Dassi And Ors. on 19 February, 1941 - Calcutta High Court
Vellappan vs Peter Thomas on 23 January, 1979 - Kerala High Court
Naresh K. Rajwani vs Rufina M. Pinto And Anr. on 8 February, 2005 - Bombay High Court
Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 1990 - Supreme Court of India
P. Rajeshkumar Bagmar vs Swathi Rajeshkumar Bagmar on 28 November, 2007 - Madras High Court
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court
Radhy Shyam(D)Thr. Lrs & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 15 April, 2011 - Supreme Court of India
On whom burden of proof lies.—The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B’s father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.
India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 102 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Narayan Govind Gavate Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 1976 - Supreme Court of India
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court
Ashitkumar vs Sonalben on 13 October, 2008 - Gujarat High Court
Jogendra Krishna Banerji And Ors. vs Sm. Subasini Dassi And Ors. on 19 February, 1941 - Calcutta High Court
Vellappan vs Peter Thomas on 23 January, 1979 - Kerala High Court
Naresh K. Rajwani vs Rufina M. Pinto And Anr. on 8 February, 2005 - Bombay High Court
Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 1990 - Supreme Court of India
P. Rajeshkumar Bagmar vs Swathi Rajeshkumar Bagmar on 28 November, 2007 - Madras High Court
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court
Radhy Shyam(D)Thr. Lrs & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 15 April, 2011 - Supreme Court of India
No comments:
Post a Comment